source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
A parallelism between "Here come they ..." and "Here comes the bus ..." A1. Hardly had they arrived ... A2. Hardly had the bus arrived ... B1. Here come they ... B2. Here comes the bus ... One can notice a parallelism between A1 and A2, and these sentences are both acceptable English. Exchanging they and the bus does not produce effects under the grammatical correctness aspect. But, even if one can notice the same parallelism between B1 and B2, the same conclusion cannot be stated because, as far as I know, B1 is not "standard" English. Can anybody explain why? <Q> I think the "parallelism" here is potentially misleading. <S> Modern English doesn't normally start a sentence with an adverb in this way. <S> We still use A1, A2, B2 in a limited number of constructions, but the grammar involved is no longer "productive". <S> As regards sentences starting with "Hardly" , I would say these are always dated/formal/literary. <S> Thus, for example, "Hardly had I begun" would normally be phrased today as "I had hardly begun" . <S> We still "tolerate" the form here comes X , but it's no accident that OP chose to switch the verb from arrive to come . <S> the neighborhood is another one). <S> Here's a chart showing how the form Here stand <S> I , for example, has declined over the past couple of centuries, and here's one for <S> Here stands <S> a man showing that it's the same with both nouns and pronouns. <S> It seems to me here <S> X comes <S> is an even more "fossilised" form than here <S> comes X . <S> But it's been "modernised" by allowing X to be a pronoun, and we've gotten so used to that form we don't like to put the pronoun at the end any more. <S> Notice that for the vast majority of verbs which can be modified by here, there , etc., you simply can't put the adverb at the front. <S> You have to adopt the modern style and place it after the verb... <S> "See that building? <S> I worked there ". <S> ( grew up, lived, studied, etc.). <A> Whilst in Barrie is technically correct in saying that expanding "Here come they" into something like "here come they for whom we have waited for so long" would make it grammatical, he is also right in saying that it is highly unusual - <S> I'm assuming you're looking for the phrase you'd use in an everyday context. <S> If this is the case, the main issue with B1 is one of word order; it should read "here they come" rather than "here come they". <S> This is due to "they" being a pronoun whereas "the bus" is a noun - for another example it would be "here comes the taxi" but "here he comes". <S> Whilst generally pronouns can be directly used in place of nouns (such as "the bus is coming" vs"it is coming" or "Jack's running past us" vs <S> "he's running past us"), this is an exception. <S> Although I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, there are probably other examples of this happening. <A> In B2 it is clear what is coming. <S> In B1, because the subject is a pronoun, it isn’t. <S> To remedy that, it would be necessary to expand it to something like ‘Here come they for whom we have waited so long’. <S> That would be grammatical. <S> It would also be unusual.
| Modern grammar doesn't allow constructions like "here arrives the bus" , except for certain established usages involving certain verbs ( there goes
|
Does the question mark mean this is a question? Imagine the following written conversation, as recently occurred via SMS between me and a friend (edited for brevity): A: What are you going to do today? B: I don't know. Go shopping? What is the meaning of the question mark in the reply? Is person B asking a question of person A? If so, why would person B expect person A to know the answer in this case? If not, why use the question mark? <Q> It's a sort of question, but not directed specifically at A; B is rhetorically playing out a question to himself. <S> " <S> Shall I go shopping?" <S> It might also invite input from A: "I was considering going shopping ... <S> unless you have a better suggestion?" <A> It looks as if Person B is saying that he might go shopping, but that he is not certain. <S> It is common in very informal communication to append a question mark to indicate uncertainty. <A> It's an open door, not a real question. <S> Person B is answering person A's question by a ‘suggestion’. <S> If person A has something to answer to that (“I can't stand shopping, why wouldn't we go …”, which is often what he has in the back of his mind when he asks for B's plans), then the question mark is welcoming him to express it. <S> If person A has nothing to answer, then it's not a question for him, just a sign that person B is unsure about these plans. <S> At least, that's the way I use that, and I do that very often. <A> Question mark in such a scenario would also indicate that B has a certain faith in A's judgement and that he expects that his answer will not be a futile one. <A> I interpret this as B's question to himself, not to A, meaning "maybe I should consider going shopping?" <S> And it's probably not even a real question, although the vocal pattern is the same as for a question; when written, a question mark at the end is the only way to indicate that intonation. <A> It could mean B is not sure he would go shopping. <S> If the question were "What should we do today?" <S> or "What are we going to do today? <S> " I would take "Go shopping?" as a suggestion for going shopping. <A> I use a question mark all the time, to me it means all of the above comments and to emphasize the point I'm trying to make and/or hopefully the other person will give it more thought.
| B is putting forward a possibility in front of A which he himself is not sure of and sort of expects A to give him an answer which may or may not be a definite one. In speech, this would usually be inflected as a question.
|
"asked" as past tense and "asked" as past participle Residents asked for comments on Lydney Area Action Plan Baseline Report. Last summer the Treasury Department asked for comments on fixes to—or outright elimination of–the use-it-or-lose-it rule in light of the new $2,500 cap. In the above examples from news reports, how can one say if "asked" means "who were asked" or not? Is there a rule of thumb to figure out this problem? What is the grammar under such a construction? <Q> Good question. <S> The short answer is there's no way of knowing except by context. <S> If we treat both of OP's examples as "valid sentences", the grammatical context clearly establishes that asked should be a past tense verb (since no other word could feasibly be acting as a verb). <S> So in neither case is it really credible to interpret <S> asked as an "adjectival* past participle (it's definitely the residents and the Department who asked for comments). <S> But consider... <S> Let's not forget those tenants asked to move out. <S> ... <S> where no grammatical principle says whether we're talking about tenants who were asked to move out (by the landlord?), or who asked if they could move out. <S> You can't choose either interpretation except through context (what the speaker said before or after it, or the general context within which he said it). <S> The same would apply with, for example, requested , and doubtless many other words. <S> Of course, it's easy to remove the ambiguity by placing who or who were between tenants and asked . <S> Thanks to Aerovistae for proposing forget that those tenants , leading to a third valid interpretation of the original. <S> One in which we're being reminded of the fact of <S> the tenants asking for relocation rather than being urged to think about the tenants themselves (those who either initiated, or were subject to, the request to leave). <A> If I understand your question correctly, the difference between the two examples is that the first isn't actually a complete sentence. <S> The correct way to write it would be: Residents were asked for comments on the Lydney Area Action Plan Baseline Report. <S> It sounds like a sentence that was cut down for brevity's sake, similar to the casual way you might speak in online chat or when in a hurry (or sometimes in news bulletins or newspaper headlines/captions, which is what your example sounds like). <S> Something similar to Sorry, was at dentist instead of <S> Sorry, I was at the dentist . <S> So now that we can see the full sentence in the first example, inclusive of the missing and implied "were" and "the", the difference between your first and second examples becomes clear. <S> The difference is that in example 1, the residents were asked , whereas in example two, the Treasury department asked . <S> The residents were asked by someone else; the Treasury department did the asking to someone else. <S> The were <S> is what makes the difference. <A> The first example looks like a headline. <S> In "news-speak", headlines usually omit as many words as possible, while getting the basic message across. <S> In the text of the piece, I would expect this to include the full verb form: Residents were asked for comments on the Lydney Area Action Plan Baseline Report. <S> However, as pointed out by FumbleFingers in a comment and another answer, it would also be possible, with more context, for this to describe a situation in which this is a full, grammatical sentence with asked expressing past tense, for example: <S> When the commissioner opened the floor for discussion, residents asked for comments ... <S> Nonetheless, in the absence of <S> the preceding Lydney , I'm still inclined to the "headline" interpretation here. <S> The second example looks like it comes from the text of a news article, and is complete, without question using the past tense. <A> I may have misunderstood the question, in which case downvote me and tell me so. <S> As I understand it, you're asking how to tell the difference between these: Residents asked for opinions on their neighborhood. <S> Residents asked for opinions on their neighborhood had little to say. <S> So, you're asking how to tell if the resident is doing the asking, or is being asked. <S> I could be wrong, but I don't think it's possible for this to be ambiguous. <S> I cannot think of any examples. <S> You can tell the difference by looking for a second verb. <S> If the residents are asking questions , the residents will have only one verb attached to them: <S> Residents asked what the police were doing. <S> ^In <S> that example the second verb were doing belongs to the police, not the residents. <S> If you understand the usage of what in this sentence, it's not possible to confuse this with the second structure. <S> Now, if that had been the second structure, where someone is asking the residents , the previous example would be grammatically incorrect, and not a sentence. <S> Let's look at it again. <S> Residents asked what the police were doing . <S> You see, if the residents were being asked, this would mean nothing. <S> It would serve as a subject clause for a longer sentence, but would mean nothing by itself because it has no other verb. <S> Which residents? <S> The residents who were asked questions. <S> What did they do? <S> I don't know, the "sentence" didn't say. <S> Remember that a sentence must have both a subject and a verb! <S> If "the residents who were asked questions" are the subjects, what is the verb? <S> Right: <S> Residents asked what the police were doing <S> said they didn't know. <S> Wrong: <S> Residents asked what the police were doing.... <S> and what? <S> Nothing! <S> This is a fragment, so it cannot be the second structure. <S> In this sentence, the residents must be the ones doing the asking. <S> There is the final possibility, as WendiKidd points out, that the sentence merely seeks to declare that the residents were asked questions. <S> In that case, you cannot just say asked , you must say were asked . <S> The residents were asked questions.
| Answer: there is none, because this isn't a sentence if the residents are the ones being asked!
|
The pronunciation of the word "Live" I know that live has several meanings, and two different pronunciations, but I don't know which pronunciation I should use in each case. Can anybody clarify this? <Q> This pronunciation is used for all tenses of the verb, and also for the participles lived and living . <S> If live is an adjective ( The band played for a live audience , or Live from New York City ), the i is pronounced the same as the i in five . <S> Alive also has this pronunciation. <A> Live can be a verb, or an adjective. <S> When it is used as verb, it is pronounced /lɪv/; when it is used as adjective, it is pronounced /laɪv/. <S> In the first case, <S> the i in live is pronounced as the i in miss ; in the second case, the i is pronounced as the i in hive . <A> to live (verb) <S> → short i, as in click, this, in living (noun) <S> → short i live (adjective) <S> → long i, as in five, knife, I (also alive ) life (noun) <S> → long i
| If live is a verb ( Live long and prosper , or I live in New York City ), the i is pronounced the same as the i in "this".
|
What does "period" mean in this conversation? What does the word period mean in the following context? It does not seem to be a part of the sentence. — Could you please {do something}? — I don't want to do that, period . <Q> In North American English, the . <S> at the end of a sentence is called a period. <S> It ends a sentence; the sentence absolutely cannot continue after the period. <S> Therefore in conversations, when you say I will not do this, period , what you are saying is that you will not do it, and the conversation is over. <S> You're not going to discuss it anymore, and can't be convinced otherwise; period . <S> Also interesting to note: In British English and some other variants of English the period ( . ) is referred to as a "full stop". <S> So in those dialects, instead of saying I will not discuss this, period , one would say I will not discuss this, full stop . <S> This might be helpful if you're having discussions with someone who speaks another dialect of English. <S> A more lengthy way to write your example sentence would be: <S> I don't want to do this, and that's all I'm going to say on the subject. <A> That is an intensifier : <S> Grammar. <S> a word, especially an adverb, or other linguistic element that indicates, and usually increases, the degree of emphasis or force to be given to the element it modifies, as very or somewhat; intensive adverb. <S> In the example, it is equivalent to "at all". <S> I'd say that a more likely occurrence would be when some form of qualifier was originally specified: <S> "You don't want to go to football practice today?" <S> "I don't want to go to football practice, period." <A> Period is the punctuation mark used at the end of a sentence ( . ). <S> In that sentence, period is used to mean something on the lines of "and I don't want to discuss it," or "end of the story." <A> It's an interjection, and unlike many interjections, it makes total sense. <S> What does a period do? <S> The interjection period , which is always used at the end of a sentence, means "And that's all there is to say. <S> " <S> It implies finality. <S> There can be no discussion or questioning. <S> In your example, the speaker will not do whatever it is. <S> Don't even try persuading him. <S> Nor does he want to give reasons.
| It ends a sentence.
|
"He likes swimming" or "He likes to swim"? One can say: He likes swimming or He likes to swim . What is the exact meaning of each of these? What is the difference? <Q> The two are often interchangeable but not always. <S> While he likes to swim always means that he enjoys propelling himself through the water using his own body power <S> , he likes swimming could also be used if he enjoys watching it as a spectator: " <S> The Olympics are on- <S> we could watch swimming or running. <S> Isn't Bill coming over? <S> He likes swimming, so we should watch that." <A> They mean the same thing and you can say either. <A> There is an interesting commentary on the similarities and differences between like + gerund and like + infinitive here . <S> I have not yet finished digesting it <S> but there is definitely some food for thought there, for both EFL teachers and students on this issue.
| The two are interchangeable. "He likes swimming" means "He likes the act of going to swim."
|
Is "chink in the armor" an appropriate saying? I've been told that the chink is an offensive word when used to refer to Asian people. On the other hand I saw the "chink in the armor" phrase in respected sources. So is it safe to say it? <Q> Although they sound the same, and are spelled the same, the two words are completely unrelated. <S> The chink in armor is a crack or split, and is a respectable word dating back to the 16th century. <S> The derogatory chink is a slang variation on Chinese which arose around 1900. <S> It would take considerable ingenuity to come up with a situation in which the two senses might be confused. <A> That said, I'd like to point to a couple of questions on ELU with a similar discussion about the word niggardly (see here and here ). <S> I'd be more inclined to advise extra caution with that word – even NOAD mentions the same thing in a usage note, and labels the word with a rather rare "often offensive" label: niggard ( n .) <S> often offensive a stingy or ungenerous person. <S> USAGE <S> This word, along with its adverbial form niggardly , should be used with caution. <S> Owing to the sound similarity to the highly inflammatory racial epithet nigger , these words can cause unnecessary confusion and unintentional offense. <S> So, the interesting question becomes, why is niggardly such a "dangerous" word to use, while "chink in the armor" doesn't carry as much baggage, if both words resemble racial insults? <S> I think this comes down to two fundamental reasons: common usage, and the meaning of the words and idioms. <S> Niggardly is a rather seldom-heard word with negative overtones. <S> Even if you completely dismiss the word's unfortunate resemblance to the similar-sounding racial slur, it means miserly or stingy , which is unflattering. <S> Pair together its rarity and derogatory meaning, and the uninformed can jump to conclusions. <S> Chink in the armor , however, is a more commonly-heard expression, like an apple a day , or best thing since sliced bread . <S> As such, it's less likely to cause people to take notice, and wonder whether you've just said something offensive. <S> With words that could be misconstrued to have an offensive meaning, every speaker and writer needs to decide whether or not the phrasing should be reworded to avoid such potential misinterpretation, or if it's safe to leave it as is. <A> A chink in someone's armor is a weak point in somebody's argument, character, etc, that can be used in an attack <S> It's a metaphorical chink - a small opening. <S> This chink sounds the same as Chink an English ethnic slur referring primarily to a person of Chinese ethnicity <S> The etymology of the offensive word Chink is not known for sure. <S> It may be related to a name for China, or may be related to the meaning of the word chink as a narrow opening, used as a rude way to describe the eyes of people of Chinese ethnicity. <S> A chink in someone's armor is a well-known phrase, and no one would think you meant to offend by saying it. <S> However, you might choose to avoid using a chink in someone's armor because it sounds the same as the offensive word Chink and may make people think of it. <S> I might do this in writing, where there is time to think about the way your audience will react to the words you use. <S> You can rewrite to talk about the character flaw he has , <S> the mistake your opponent made in her argument , or whatever actual opening you see. <A> A chink is a crack or a weak, vulnerable spot, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that idiom. <S> According to Merriam-Webster , the word was documented at least as far back as the 16th century. <S> The racial slur came much later, first documented at the end of the 19th century. <S> The terms are completely unrelated. <S> Based on this Ngram, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the older, proper term is more widely used, and that the hump at the end of the 19 century is due to the offensive term, which appears to have mostly disappeared, at least in published works. <S> Since the chink in the armor is a well known idiom which almost certainly refers to the first sense, I see no reason why it should not be used. <S> Unfortunately, however, some people (many of whom are very outspoken) will be offended by almost anything. <A> Although I'd never even think that "a chink in one's armour" could be taken as an insult, the rule, as with all idioms, is to avoid its use if you're not sure. <S> The idiom, whilst well known, isn't in particularly common usage, and hence its use in front of asian colleagues could be taken the wrong way. <S> In any case there are usually better phrases you can use to get the same point across: <S> Let's move to plug the hole in our defences <S> I can see a gaping hole in that plan. <S> Not having run product trials could be the fatal flaw in our new marketing strategy.
| I agree with the overall sentiment being expressed here – that the expression "chink in the armor" is normally a safe thing to say. Factors to consider include the intended audience, and whether or not the word in question has enough widespread use that it's unlikely to be misheard or misunderstood.
|
Wealthy and Rich, what's the difference Is there any difference between someone being wealthy and someone being rich ? For instance, is Bill Gates rich or wealthy ? Or maybe he is both. I don't get the subtle difference if any. <Q> Wealthy and Rich are both synonymous in terms of money. <S> Both mean "having a great deal of money and assets". <S> So you can interchangebly use them to convey Bill Gates is rich . <S> However, you can see rich has various usages other than abundance of money. <S> They can be found in the Oxford Dictionary hyperlink I have attached. <A> There's also implications of social class in "Wealthy" that aren't as common with "Rich". <S> In other words: If you say that Bill Gates is rich, you are saying he has lots of money. <S> If you say that Bill Gates is wealthy, you are saying that he is rich, & that he grew up with lots of money. <S> A thesaurus at <S> YourDictionary.com explains the difference as: <S> William Safire, in a 1990 column , puts it as, "a rich family has to wait until its money ages before it becomes a wealthy family." <A> In terms of money, rich is used to describe someone who has a certain amount of money/liquid capital (it's relative, however much money makes you 'rich' in my eyes, might not necessarily make you 'rich' in the eyes of Bill Gates). <S> Wealthy is also used in this way, however it is commonly used to describe someone who is beyond rich with just money alone (liquid cash, businesses, investments, etc) so to give an example, your favorite musician might be rich, but Bill Gates or Donald Trump would be considered wealthy. <A> There is a big difference. <S> When I was younger I thought they were the same, until Magic Johnson gave a interview. <S> He stated that there is a big difference between the two. <S> Even though I do not remember what he said word-for-word, I will always remember the gist of what he said. <S> To paraphrase: Wealthy is being able to provide for your family generations after your death (sustained money) and being rich is short-lived. <S> I am 33 years old <S> I have never forgotten that. <S> Me, personally, I want to be wealthy. <S> Please GOD <S> I have been praying and LORD <S> I beg you <S> make me wealthy, no matter what. <S> Amen <A> There are some good answers here, but I'd like to point out yet another aspect. <S> Wealthy may suggest a person who has enough money for their needs. <S> At the same time, rich may connote someone who is demonstrating their money (sometimes, in an exaggerate way). <S> In this regard, I would say, Bill Gates, who's spending a lot of his earnings to charity, is wealthy , while the person from an image below is rich . <A> It is also worth noting that "wealthy" is a much politer way of saying that someone has a lot of money than "rich" is. <S> Often, this is a topic that should be talked about with some caution. <S> So for example: He is rich! <S> > <S> There is a slight air of disgust/jealousy perhaps; I am showing my opinion towards the fact that this person has a lot of money and it is slightly negative. <S> He is wealthy. <S> > <S> I am simply commenting on the fact that this person has a lot of money, without showing my opinion. <A> There is a difference between Switzerland without natural resources and Congo plenty of these resources (coper, titan..) <S> The first one is wealthy and the later is rich but poor
| rich is the general word for one who has more money, possessions, or income-producing property than is necessary to satisfy normal needs; wealthy adds to this connotation of grand living, influence in the community, a tradition of richness, etc.
|
Is "rain is falling" entirely wrong? I thought it was a custom in English to write "it is raining" instead of "rain is falling". Still I don't know why the second construction is wrong. Yet I found a song called Rain is Falling , so I'm confused. Is this construction entirely wrong? <Q> It is raining <S> is how we normally describe the weather on a rainy day. <S> However, that doesn't make rain is falling grammatically incorrect. <S> That construction may not be a common way to describe the weather, but it's not "wrong." <S> The word rain can be a verb, or a noun; as a noun, it refers collectively to raindrops. <S> Moreover, falling can refer to anything dropping from the sky. <S> Therefore, paratroopers can be falling, drones can be falling, and rain can be falling. <S> One might regard "rain is falling" to be a more poetic way to talk about the rain; for example, "Rain is falling in Santa Fe" might be considered more poetic than "It is raining in Santa Fe." <S> Here's another place where I could see a writer using this way of phrasing it: <S> The firefighters had been battling the wildfires for three days. <S> On Friday morning, their prayers were finally answered; rain was falling as the sun came over the mountains. <S> Bottom line: <S> Don't confuse "less common" with "incorrect". <A> The listener would know what you were saying (correctly) either way. <S> But it sounds a bit more natural when you are talking about the state of the weather to say, "It is raining." <S> The word rain describes both an object (the physical rain from the sky) and a state of the weather (it is raining today). <S> So if you are stating what the weather is, it sounds a bit redundant to say it is falling. <S> "It is raining" versus "There is rain outside and it is falling." <S> The construct seems pretty consistent. <S> "It is cloudy." — <S> describing the state of the weather. <S> "There are clouds in the sky." — describing the physical object. <A> It is raining . <S> This Ngram shows the relative frequency of use in published works: <A> Well, I might find it redundant because RAIN is meant to fall <S> and you cannot say that "The rain is falling." <S> but instead, we should say "It is raining." <S> It is accepted in literature, especially in poems, because we have poetic license.
| Rain is falling is grammatically correct, even though it is used less frequently than There is absolutely nothing wrong with the construct "rain is falling." Another thing, it is grammatically correct that is why some writers use it to their pieces.
|
How should numbers be spelled on a receipt? One of the most confusing things for me is spelling English numerals. What is grammatical way to spell the following numbers in the context of writing the numeral in a receipt? $100 — a hundred dollars or one hundred dollars ? $201 — two hundred [and?] one dollar [s?] ? $1500 — fifteen hundred dollars or one thousand five hundred dollars ? $1525 — fifteen twenty-five dollars or [one/a] thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars ? Also, is there any difference between UK and US systems? If so, what are they and what system do I use in a non-English speaking country? <Q> I'm British, but I can answer for the UK and US: $100 — a hundred dollars or one hundred dollars ? <S> "A hundred dollars" is how I'd say it in speech. <S> " <S> $201 — two hundred [and?] <S> one dollar [s?] ? <S> In the UK we'd say "two hundred and one dollars". <S> In the US, they might say "two hundred one dollar[s]". <S> $1500 — fifteen hundred dollars or one thousand five hundred dollars ? <S> "Fifteen hundred dollars" is how I'd say it in speech. <S> The more "proper" way to say it, and the way I'd write it on a cheque is: "One thousand, five hundred dollars" (never "one thousand and five hundred dollars"). <S> $1525 — <S> fifteen twenty-five dollars or [one/a] thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars ? <S> I'd never say "fifteen twenty-five dollars", <S> I'd either say "Fifteen hundred and twenty five dollars", or "one thousand, five hundred and twenty five dollars". <S> Americans might skip the "and". <S> For a non-English speaking country, say the number fully using "one", for the sake of clarity. <S> In some countries though (such as the Netherlands and Norway), the use of "fifteen hundred" etc. is the same in that language too. <A> In writing receipts, checks, or other formal documents, Americans are taught to use the numeric values. <S> As and indicates a decimal, it should not be written into the main value in such documents. <S> Generally, one breaks down a number every three orders of magnitude (i.e. thousands, thousands of thousands, and so on): $100 — one hundred dollars $201 — two hundred one dollars $201.37 — two hundred one dollars and 37 cents or (for checks) two hundred one and 37/100 dollars $1525 — one thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars $723,493 — seven hundred twenty-three thousand, four hundred ninety-three dollars <S> Conversationally, however, the usage varies. <S> $100 — a hundred dollars or one hundred dollars $201 — two hundred and one dollars $201.37 — two hundred and one dollars and thirty-seven cents $1525 — one thousand five hundred and twenty-five dollars or fifteen hundred and twenty-five dollars $723,493 — seven hundred twenty-three thousand, four hundred and ninety-three dollars <S> it is common to drop one in leading quantities in favor of <S> a — <S> The repair cost a thousand francs! <S> I would add that saying "one thousand francs" more strongly suggests a value of exactly one thousand francs, whereas "a thousand francs" could be taken as an approximation. <S> and is often inserted for values of under 100 as well as the decimal — <S> The grand total is twelve thousand four hundred and seventy-one dollars and four cents . <S> To omit and would make the number sound very formal to my ears. <S> round multiples of hundreds as xx hundred , up to 9900 — <S> You can get one used for thirty-six hundred dollars, but with the touring package it's hard to find them under four thousand. <S> I am told that this is more common in American speech than British. <S> In a non-English speaking country, however, I would always say one thousand instead of a thousand for clarity. <S> The division of magnitudes will vary somewhat by local custom; I think expressing in thousands as opposed to tens of hundreds would be safest, as kilo- <S> is a common prefix in the metric system and well-understood as 10^3. <S> In South Asia, however, I have found fluent English speakers will use lakh freely in conversation (100000), something that would not be widely understood elsewhere. <A> Going through each one I can help answer your question. <S> $100 — a hundred dollars or one hundred dollars? <S> For this one we can say either a hundred or one hundred, it makes little difference apart from when writing. <S> $201 — two hundred [and?] <S> one dollar[s?] <S> ? <S> For this example we would use and between the hundred and the unit. <S> When using hundreds, tens and units, we put and after the hundred but before the tens and units. <S> HTU = <S> Hundreds (100-900), Tens (10-90) and Units (1-9). <S> 101 = One/a hundred and one. <S> 220 = <S> Two hundred and twenty two. <S> 333 = Three hundred and thirty three. <S> $1500 — fifteen hundred dollars or one thousand five hundred dollars? <S> This one can be said in both ways without confusion. <S> $1525 — <S> fifteen twenty-five dollars or [one/a] thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars? <S> Fifteen twenty five dollars is not usually used. <S> If the unit of currency is mentioned we would go for the second option. <S> On television advertisements it has been known for the advertiser to use examples like fifteen twenty five but not use the name of the currency. <S> The HTU example also works with thousands. <S> Also like before the tens and the units. <S> THTU <S> = <S> Thousands (1-900) <S> Hundreds (100-900), Tens (10-90) and Units (1-9). <S> 1101 = <S> One thousand, one hundred and one. <S> 2220 = <S> Two thousand, two hundred and twenty two. <S> 3333 = <S> Three thousand, three hundred and thirty three. <S> 5050 = <S> Five thousand and fifty. <S> 6656 = <S> Six thousand, six hundred and fifty six. <S> 7500 = <S> Seven thousand, five hundred. <S> There is also no real difference between UK and US counting system.
| One hundred dollars" is how I'd write it on a cheque. The main differences in the languages are spelling and pronunciation.
|
Should nouns after "any" be singular or plural? While I was answering a question on ELL, I got confused with a comment from a fellow user. After I indicated that: "Do you have any idea to prove it?' is grammatically correct, the OP commented that "ideas" should be used in place of "idea". The comment befuddled me. I thought until now that "any" should be followed by singular noun and not plural. So I searched Google and saw it's a huge debate going on and there is no end to it. I got no perfect and trustworthy source. So I thought to post the question here. So what is the right rule? Should singular or plural be used after "any"? <Q> The correct use changes depending on the sentence: <S> Do you have any idea how to do this? <S> Do you have any idea what to do? <S> Do you have any idea <S> s for me? <S> Do you have any idea s for how to do this? <S> It seems that, if the singular or plural noun ( idea ) is directly connected by a subordinating conjuction ( how / what / <S> where / which / that ), you use the singular; if it's modified by a prepositional phrase ( for... ) or by nothing at all, you use the plural. <S> Without using all that grammar jargon, I'd say use the singular if it's followed by <S> how , what , that , <S> who , whom , whose , which , etc, and use the plural otherwise. <A> The NOAD ( New Oxford American Dictionary ) has a note about using any : <S> When used as a pronoun, any can be used with either a singular or a plural verb, depending on the context: "we needed more sugar <S> but there wasn't any left" (singular verb) or <S> "are any of the new videos available?" <S> (plural verb). <S> In "English Grammar" (David Daniels & Barbara Daniels, ISBN 0-06-467109-7), any is listed between the pronouns that can be either plural or singular, among all , more , and some . <S> Looking for "do you have any idea for" on the Corpus of the Contemporary American English <S> , I get a single sentence. <S> But what happened was that the network came to us—because we have a little production company that does my specials—and said, do you have any idea for a show? <S> Looking for <S> "do you have any ideas for," I get three sentences: <S> Do you have any ideas for the next movie? <S> Well, then," said Avette, "do you have any ideas for another topic?" <S> Do you have any ideas for me? <S> Looking for "do you have any idea(s) to," I get the following sentences: <S> Do you have any idea to this day how you stacked up against the men? <S> So, do you have any ideas to help cows and sheep stop with the gas problem? <S> Do you have any ideas to boost union membership? <S> As side note, the Corpus of Contemporary American English doesn't have any example of the phrases I searched for the period 2010-2012. <S> The sentences containing "any ideas to/for" are dated 2005-2009 (the most recent ones), while the sentences containing "any idea to/for" are dated 1995-1999. <A> Conjugating “to do” demonstrates that “does” is used with a (third person) singular object. <S> Now, since “Do any here object?” <S> sounds right, but “Does any here object?” <S> doesn’t suggests that “any” regards a plurality. <S> Also, the fact that the word “anyONE” exists at all suggests that “any” refers to a plurality. <A> If you have learnt a rule that "any" can only be connected with a singular noun it is wrong. <S> " <S> Is there any question? <S> The speaker indicates that there is probably no more than one question. <S> Are there any questions. <S> The speaker indicates that there might be several questions. <S> See OALD http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/any_1
| Any" can be used with singular or plural according to sense.
|
Is "midway through to X" acceptable? Suppose I go a ballpark or some mall, and I forget to take the tickets or something like that along with me; I realize it on my way to the mall/ballpark. Can I say: Midway through to the mall, I realized that I did not have the tickets and so I headed back. <Q> There are two issues here: which word to use, and which preposition(s) to use. <S> As for the word, normally, I'd probably say halfway , instead of midway , assuming I was roughly halfway there. <S> If I wasn't around the midpoint of the trip, though, I'd be more likely to say, "Partway to the mall..." <S> However, that's a stylistic choice; there's nothing wrong with the word <S> midway <S> (in fact, one could argue that, according to some dictionary definitions, midway is the better word, unless I was exactly halfway there). <S> Here are some definitions (from NOAD): midway ( adv. ) <S> in or toward the middle of something : Peter came to a halt midway down the street <S> halfway <S> ( adv. ) at or to a point equidistant between two others : he stopped halfway down the passage <S> partway <S> ( adv. ) <S> part of the way : <S> partway along the corridor he stopped . <S> As for the preposition issue, I wouldn't say: Partway through to the mall... <S> Instead, a simple to will suffice: <S> Partway to the mall.... <A> I can see two possible intentions: <S> I am going to the mall (I haven't got there yet) <S> - when I realize I that I don't have the tickets <S> I am at the mall, but not at the specific location that needs tickets to get in (malls are fairly big) - when I realize I don't have the tickets. <S> For the first case, you need to remove the through from your sentence. <S> The construct 'midway through' gives the impression that you are already in the mall. <S> Additionally, midway will need to be replaced as it doesn't quite fit idiomatically. <S> (Strictly speaking, I don't think it's incorrect to say 'midway to the mall ...', but it feels awkward to me.) <S> In this instance, I would change the sentence to: While on my way to the mall, I realized ... <S> or maybe: I was about halfway to the mall, when I realized ... <S> For the second case, the to in your example gives the impression that the subject (you) is not yet at the mall. <S> This is in the same sense as 'I am going to the mall'. <S> It is something I have not yet done. <S> Obviously, this isn't correct in the example, as you are already in the mall. <S> Midway through the mall, I realized that I did not have the tickets <S> and so I headed back. <S> The issue is that to and through in this instance convey opposite impressions and one or the other needs to be removed from the sentence. <A> I think this sentence is OK as is, by my understanding of its meaning. <S> You are moving, indicated by 'through". "midway" indicates somewhere in the middle of the mall, but not necessarily halfway. <S> Certainly there are other ways to say it, but as is I think its OK.
| The sentence is not quite correct.
|
What does "I'm pretty sure" mean? Does that expression mean "I'm totally sure" or "I'm almost sure"? I always thought the first option was correct, but once I saw in a series episode a character who said that, and his interlocutor expressed skepticism about it (something like "Are you sure or pretty sure?"). Does that depend on context, or does it always mean the same? <Q> We can't assign a percentage of certainty to it, but it isn't close to 100%. <S> Perhaps 60-85% certain is close to what it means for most native speakers. <S> The more emphatic the statement (stress and pitch and volume are involved, because this is primarily spoken English, but in written English it might be underlined or in bold font or in capital letters for emphasis), the more certain the speaker/writer is. <S> I'm quite sure <S> probably means about 90-100% certain , however. <A> I'm going to go ahead and propose a different answer, despite @Bill_Franke's answer already having more than 10 upvotes. <S> I think Bill's answer is likely a perfectly correct representation of the usage of pretty sure in American English <S> but I speak British English and to me it means something different. <S> Per the OED : <S> pretty, adv. <S> a. <S> Qualifying an adjective or adverb: to a considerable extent; fairly, moderately; rather, quite. <S> In later use also: very. <S> Whilst I would understand <S> the to a considerable extent <S> meaning, given context and intonation, my default would be to assume this later use of very . <S> Further, if I were to say <S> she's pretty good looking or, for our current question, <S> I'm pretty sure I could drive that van <S> , these would mean <S> she's gorgeous or <S> I can definitely drive that van, no question . <S> b. <S> pretty much: almost, very nearly; more or less; (also, in early use) very much, considerably. <S> Whilst this definition is specific to pretty much <S> , I see it as very synonymous with pretty sure . <S> The phrase I've pretty much finished work would imply, to me, that only a few moments' work is left. <S> The phrase <S> I'm pretty sure <S> Adam finished work by now <S> means that I would be very surprised if Adam had not finished work. <S> Finally, pretty sure can be used as a form of politeness or disingenuous courtesy. <S> I'm pretty sure <S> that's not how you do it <S> may be seen as a nicer alternative to Wrong! , <S> and I'm pretty sure you'll find that's not the case <S> is somewhat less friendly, though more socially acceptable. <S> -- <S> In brief, I believe that in British English, pretty sure would generally be taken to mean certain , or at least 90% close to certain. <S> I currently live in the USA and this is often a source of confusion. <A> So much depends on context. <S> We may also need to take irony and a feel-free-to-see-for-yourself attitude into account. <S> I wouldn't sit on that bench if I were you. <S> The paint is wet. <S> -- <S> Looks dry to me. <S> I just painted it, so I'm pretty sure it's wet. <S> But go ahead, have a seat. <S> The phrase "I'm pretty sure" there, while it means on its surface <S> "There's a chance I'm wrong", actually means "I know damn well that the paint is wet <S> but it's ultimately up to you to make that determination for yourself if you're the kind of person who ignores a friendly warning when you're given one." <A> “I am pretty sure”, spoken in a held-back sort of way, would mean that I am now wondering if I was wrong, and I am inviting comment. <S> Alternatively, it might be a polite way of suggesting that someone else is wrong <S> — e.g. “I am pretty sure that… if we keep going down this street, we will end up back at the park”. <S> “I am pretty sure”, spoken with “pretty sure” going down in pitch, would mean that the other person was definitely wrong, and was missing something — like in Tᴚoɯɐuo’s example about wet paint. <S> For example, if there are several people in a car, and we are lost, and have a map… I might say, “I am pretty sure that, if we take this road, we will be driving away from the river.” <S> I suppose that the point is that the qualifier “pretty”, with “sure”, carries the idea that someone is, or could be, mistaken.
| In Australia… I would understand “I am pretty sure” by the tone of voice used. “I am pretty sure that X”, spoken in a matter-of-fact way (and slightly slowly), would mean that there is a conversation in which no one is certain… but that I have very little doubt that X is true (but it is possible that I am entirely wrong).
|
Can I say that "his experiments are doubtful"? I would like to express the fact that I don't have confidence in what a scientist has told me concerning an experiment he has led. Can I say that "his experiments are doubtful"? <Q> Doubtful may be used in several ways : <S> Something that is causing doubt; A person who is unsure or expresses doubt <S> ; So, you can use doubtful in both contexts. <S> If you wish to be most precise, finding a synonym is easy: <S> His experiments are questionable ( ambiguous , problematic ); <S> His experiments are not convincing ; I'm skeptical about his experiments; <A> I would say "I am doubtful of his experiments." which has the opposite meaning of "I am confident in his experiments." <A> It seems ok to me. <S> But I'd use <S> I'm doubtful about his experiments. <S> And you could also use other words like <S> questionable or unreliable : <S> His experiments are questionable / unreliable . <A> You might want to consider the word dubious for expressing your sentiments: <S> His experiments are dubious . <S> According to Macmillan , the word means: dubious ( adj. ) <S> not sure about the truth or quality of something: <S> I'm dubious about his ability to do the job. <S> and Collins : <S> dubious <S> ( adj. ) <S> marked by or causing doubt ⇒ a dubious reply of doubtful quality; <S> untrustworthy ⇒ <S> a dubious reputation <S> Indeed, the word is sometimes used to describe experiments: <S> In a dubious experiment, Leary had given psilocybin to hardened inmates in a state prison 1 <S> An incomplete or less than certain theory becomes a "model"; a dubious experiment becomes a "simulation", and so on. <S> 2 Remember, "A dubious experiment can only beget a dubious result." <S> (Glaucon) <S> F O O T N O T E S <S> 1 <S> W.J. Rorabaugh, Kennedy and the Promise of the Sixties , 2002. <S> 2 L. Magnani & N.J. Nersessian, Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values , 2002. <A> Technically speaking, you could probably justify referring to doubtful experiments <S> where you mean you have doubts about any conclusions drawn from those experiments (for whatever reason). <S> But it doesn't sound very natural to me, and I think it's probably not a good idea. <S> Ordinarily, people are "doubtful" when they are "full of doubts". <S> By extension, we often say some specific statement of fact is "doubtful", meaning we doubt (don't believe) that it's true. <S> You might stretch that a little further and say that someone's argument is "doubtful", to mean the line of reasoning is flawed - but most people would simply assume you meant you doubted <S> the conclusion was true, so <S> it's not a very meaningful distinction. <S> When it comes to experiments , that distinction between the investigative process and the final conclusion suddenly becomes much more important. <S> I haven't looked into the matter too closely, but I note that on this Wikipedia page it says "Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which the human body reacts to freezing is based almost exclusively on ... <S> Nazi experiments" . <S> What those Nazi "doctors" did is an extreme instance of what people normally mean when they refer to doubtful or dubious experiments . <S> It's not that we question the truth of whatever the dubious experiment demonstrates - it's the morality of performing the experiment at all that we have "doubts" about. <S> I would advise OP to say he thinks the scientist's experiment is flawed, inconclusive, questionable, poorly designed, inadequately documented , or whatever other specific shortcoming he finds. <S> An experiment itself isn't something that can be true or untrue, but it can certainly be [of] doubtful [ morality ] , and that's what I think many if not most people would understand if you described it using the word. <A> Are you doubtful of his experiments, or just about results? <S> If you are doubtful only of the results, or the significance of the results, that's quite a separate matter. <S> For this reason, I would avoid saying "I am doubtful of his experiments" because it is ambiguous, and leaves the reader/listener wondering what you really doubt. <S> Be more explicit. <S> I am doubtful of his conclusions. <S> I am doubtful of the methods used in his experiments.
| To be doubtful of the experiments suggests that you think his methods, or perhaps his presuppositions are faulty.
|
"a comparison between A and B" or "a comparison of A and B"? When I have to compare two things A and B, can I say "a comparison between A and B" or "a comparison of A and B". Which is best ? <Q> To keep things super-duper simple: Both are fine. <S> They mean exactly the same thing. <S> Use either one. <S> No one will misunderstand you. <S> Both are equally common in everyday usage. <S> In fact, if anything, I would say that "a comparison of A and B" is perhaps more common, even though it may sound slightly less correct. <S> This Ngram would seem to back me up. <A> If you compare A with B, then the comparison is between A and B. <S> You could also say "comparison of A with B" as in the following sentence. <S> The immediacy of effect is assessed both with the observed data from phases 1 and 2, and a comparison of the observed data in phase 2 with the projected data from phase 1. <S> Counseling smoking parents of young children: comparison of pediatricians and family physidans. <A> You use between when you are comparing two things and among when comparing more than two things. <S> Ex. <S> Between my brother and sister, my brother is easily the most spoiled. <S> Tom is the smartest among my friends.
| You could also say "comparison of A and B" as in the following sentence.
|
Should period (full stop) be inside or outside brackets? If some part of the sentence at the end is enclosed in brackets, should the full stop be inside or outside the bracket? I need to visit the supermarket to get some fruits, groceries and clothes (and also to meet my friend who works there). OR I need to visit the supermarket to get some fruits, groceries and clothes (and also to meet my friend who works there.) Note: The example is only to illustrate the question. I have seen both usages, and did not find any place where such a rule is described. <Q> The easiest way to make sure you do this the right way is to mentally remove the entire parenthetical portion. <S> Then ask yourself, is the sentence still punctuated correctly? <S> In this case, we have a problem (because I've put the period inside the parentheses.) <S> In this example, everything is fine (because the period is still at the end of the sentence). <S> (This one is very awkward, because the exclamation point is left all by itself)! <S> (A parenthetical statement without any other text should include the period inside the parentheses.) <S> The first and third sentences are incorrectly punctuated, for the reasons explained in the sentences themselves. <A> In your example, the period goes outside the parentheses, as in the following example: <S> I love punctuation (bearing in mind, of course, that everybody else does, too). <S> In the following example, anyway, the period is inside the parentheses. <S> I love punctuation. <S> (Anybody who cares about civilization loves it, too.) <S> Comma sense, a fun-damental guide to punctuation <S> ( Richard Lederer and John Shore), the book from which I have taken these examples, says: Periods belong inside parentheses that enclose a freestanding sentence and outside parentheses that enclose material that is not a full statement. <S> What I reported is probably how the punctuation is used in American English. <S> I don't know if it is the same in British English too. <S> (I know that American English, and British English use punctuation differently in many cases, for example periods, or commas, inside quotes.) <A> The period should be outside the final parenthesis in your sentence because it ends the sentence, not the phrase inside the parentheses. <S> If the phrase inside the parentheses requires its own punctuation mark(s), because it's an exclamation or a question or a quotation, then the required punctuation should be inside the parentheses and the period should be outside final parenthesis: <S> I need to visit the supermarket <S> (Do I really?). <S> It's not normal even for dialog. <S> I usually delete the parentheses around what I initially felt were parenthetical remarks. <S> If they're worth writing, then they probably shouldn't be parenthetical. <A> Brackets don't end a sentence, full stops do. <S> If the content inside the bracket is a full sentence in its own right, then it gets a full stop. <S> The enclosing sentence (outside the brackets) also gets a full stop. <S> You wouldn't normally see a full sentence in brackets within a sentence in written English. <S> More common is a full sentence in brackets between two separate sentences. <S> As per above, in this instance, the full stop goes inside the brackets.
| If the content inside the brackets isn't a full sentence, then the full stop does not belong inside the brackets.
|
How do I tell somebody not to tell me lies? How should I say to somebody not to tell me lies? Don't lie to me. Don't lie with me. Don't lie on me. Don't lie me. Don't lie. I am sure that, because of the various meanings lie has, some of those sentences have a meaning different from the one I want, causing some hilarious effect, if I use the wrong preposition. "Don't lie" seems too generic. What I want to communicate is something on the lines of "You can tell lies to whomever you want, but don't do that with me." <Q> "Don't lie to me" is the phrase you want. <S> Here's a breakdown of the rest: <S> Don't lie with me. <S> Don't lie (in the bed) with me. <S> Never said, but this is what it would mean. <S> Don't lie on me. <S> Don't sleep on top of me. <S> Rarely said because who wants to lie on another person? <S> Don't lie me. <S> Makes no sense. <S> Lie does not take a direct object. <S> Don't lie. <S> Makes sense, but you're not specifying that they shouldn't lie to you in particular, but that they should not lie to anyone in general. <A> As you mentioned, "don't lie" is generic. <S> However if you are in a conversation with a single person or group of people, saying "don't lie" will be understood as meaning "don't lie to me ." <S> Example Consider a scenario where several children are playing outside, and one of them breaks a window by throwing a ball. <S> An adult might address the children as follows: <S> Now don't lie. <S> Who broke the window? <S> The children would understand that the adult doesn't want them to lie when responding. <S> The to me is implied and understood. <S> It is equally correct for the adult to have said: <S> Now don't lie to me. <S> Who broke the window? <S> Both mean the same thing. <S> In both scenarios, the adult is asking the children who broke the window, and saying that whoever responds shouldn't lie. <S> Other versions <S> "To lie with" is an older euphemism for "to have sex with. <S> " I believe examples of this usage may be found in older translations of the bible. <S> The internet indicates this usage as "archaic." <S> "To lie on me" indicates that someone is physically lying on top of you. <S> So "don't lie on me <S> " would indicate that you're asking someone to not lie on top of you. <S> "Don't lie me" is simply wrong. <A> Lie is tricky in that there are at least two common senses: to make a false statement with the intent to deceive, or to recline or rest in a horizontal position. <S> Don't lie to me. <S> is the form to use to say, "Don't tell me falsehoods." <S> Don't lie. <S> would function as a more general moral or ethical directive— to never say untrue things to anyone at any time— except in very directed communication, as when admonishing a child. <S> Using Don't lie me. <S> would be rather unusual. <S> Lie can be used transitively, but mostly to say things like <S> The firm would never have qualified for a listing <S> were it not for the fraud; ABC Ltd. lied itself into a public company. <S> The other prepositions would all strongly indicate the "recline" sense of lie. <S> Don't lie with me. <S> means "Don't lie in the same place as I do," and unless context is otherwise, suggests "Don't lie in bed for sexual relations with me." <S> Don't lie on me. <S> means "don't physically lie down on top of me."
| The correct versions are "Don't lie to me" and "Don't lie."
|
The department shredded all the files from the inquiry[,] 'which'/'that' contained embarrassing material The department shredded all the files from the inquiry which contained embarrassing material. After having read the sentence above, I was wondering if the department destroy every file, or only those with embarrasing contents. Could one avoid ambiguity using a comma before 'which', like in A? Or is it better to this pourpose replacing 'which' with 'that', like in B? A. The department shredded all the files from the inquiry, which contained embarrassing material. B. The department shredded all the files from the inquiry that contained embarrassing material. <Q> In the case of your first example, the absence of a comma before which marks the which-clause as restrictive —that is, the sentence refers only to those [files from the inquiry] containing embarrassing material. <S> It is called restrictive because the sentence's reference is restricted or limited to those files identified in the which-clause. <S> Only the files containing embarassing material were destroyed; other files were left untouched. <S> If you put the comma in, as in your A. example, the which-clause becomes non-restrictive —that is, the sentence refers to all [files from the inquiry], and the which-clause is just an added description of those files. <S> All the files were destroyed, and they all happened to contain embarassing material. <S> With a non-restrictive clause you cannot use that —you must use which . <S> Some style guides (and some editors) claim that a restrictive clause should not use which but only that ; but this ‘rule’ is not universally observed even in the most formal writing. <S> It is only a ‘recommendation’, which you may follow or not, as you please. <A> Sentence A means the department destroyed all the files from the inquiry, and those files contained embarrassing material. <S> Sentence B means the department destroyed only those files found during the investigation that contained embarrassing material; other files found during the investigation were not destroyed. <S> In sentence A, which introduces a nonrestrictive clause, while in sentence B, <S> that introduces a restrictive clause. <S> The NOAD has a note about nonrestrictive/restrictive clauses. <S> In writing, a restrictive relative clause is not set off by commas, and that is the preferred subject or object of the clause, although many writers use <S> which and who or <S> whom for such clauses. <A> This reminds me of a comic in my elementary school planner. <S> It looked like the following: <S> Dog, eating chicken. <S> [picture of a dog, sitting at a table and neatly eating a chicken breast] Dog-eating chicken! <S> [picture of a giant drooling chicken chasing a dog and trying to eat it] <S> So obviously, though exaggerated, the intention is to show that punctuation can have a huge impact on the sentence. <S> :) <S> In your example: The department shredded all the files from the inquiry which contained embarrassing material. <S> The department shredded files. <S> Which files? <S> All the files that were 1) from the inquiry and 2) contained embarrassing materials. <S> This is exactly the same as your modification B, which switches "which" for "that"--they are interchangeable here, and mean the same thing. <S> Now your example A means something entirely different: A. <S> The department shredded all the files from the inquiry, which contained embarrassing material. <S> Here the clause after the comma, "which contained embarrassing material", is simply extra information added to the sentence. <S> It would mean the exact same thing if it only said "The department shredded all the files from the inquiry." <S> The clause after the comma only exists to add extra information; the sentence stands on its own without it. <S> This sentence means that all files were shredded, and all files contained embarrassing material. <A> The comma is used in writing to convey the idea that the which clause does not go with the immediately preceding element but with something more distant. <S> However, this does not eliminate the abmiguity from the spoken language. <S> There isn't any way to pronounce the comma to eliminate the ambiguity. <S> Semantics of the sentence eliminates the ambiguity. <S> It is documents which contain embarrassing material. <S> Inquiries do not contain; they are carried out and produce findings. <S> Language is inherently ambiguous. <S> For instance: John ate the sandwich in the fridge <S> Did he eat it in the fridge, or did he find it in the fridge? <S> Both parses of the sentence are valid syntax, but only one makes sense. <S> One way you avoid ambiguity is to make the meaning so clear that there is a single correct interpretation, and the others are ridiculous. <S> Another way you can avoid ambiguity is to basically embrace it: there are two interpretations, but it basically doesn't matter which one you choose. <S> So for instance, your original sentence is works because inquiries don't contain. <S> Suppose we have another noun there instead of inquiry: <S> The department shredded all the files from the box which contained embarrassing material. <S> Is it the files which contained embarassing material, and the box had other files which did not? <S> Or did the box contain nothing but embarassing material? <S> Unless this subtle distinction is somehow very important in the overall message, who cares! <S> If it becomes important, the people who are communicating can seek clarification. <S> Were there other files in the box, and what happened to those? <A> The department shredded all the files from the inquiry which contained embarrassing material. <S> This sentence should probably be restructured for clarity. <S> I believe the intention is the FILES contained embarrassing material , but the sentence reads as if the INQUIRY contained embarrassing material . <S> I would restructure to something like: <S> Due to the inquiry, the department shredded all files containing embarrassing material. <S> If the inquiry contained the shredded files: <S> The department shredded all files containing embarrassing material submitted with the inquiry. <S> Or From the inquiry, the department shredded all files containing embarrassing material.
| The comma is exactly what you use to avoid ambiguity. With a restrictive clause you may use either that or which .
|
What does "back east" mean? How do I go back east if I've never been to the east? It does not make sense to return to a place you've never been. <Q> In American English, we sometimes say up north , down south , out west , and back east <S> when referring to directions. <S> The words up , down , out , and back do not have any special meaning in this context, but are often used as a matter of convention. <S> Additionally, the Eastern United States is sometimes referred to as back east . <S> According to this Ngram, it appears that this usage became more common in the latter half of the 19th century, began to decline between 1940 and 1970, and then became more widely used than before: <A> See e.g. http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/1898/ <S> The underlying source is the idea everyone is somehow "from" the east, and they (or their ancestors) at one point moved "out west", but if they were to return, it would be to go "back east." <A> Sometimes "back X" can refer to a cultural or family home, even if one has never been there. <S> I'd love to go back to Africa <S> The implication is that one's culture, or "roots" are in Africa. <S> However, this is still ambiguous as the speaker might quite rightly assume that the speaker had been there before. <A> Most of the settlement of the United States was done by people moving from east to west. <S> For example, the original 13 states in the United States were along the Atlantic coast. <S> Yes, the Spanish also colonized Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and California, and the French colonized Louisiana -- but those are exceptions that prove the rule. <S> In 1803 (when the U.S. purchased Louisiana), the Louisiana Purchase was of territory adjacent to and west of the United States. <S> In the 1830s, American settlers moving west from Tennessee greatly outnumbered the Spanish-speaking colonists in Texas. <S> In 1849, a "Gold Rush" of American "49ers" moving west similarly overwhelmed the Spanish-organized Indians around the California missions. <S> Most of the people who moved west during the settlement of the United States moved to areas where North literally is upstream from South. <S> Most of the United States is in a huge basin, bounded by the Appalachian mountains in the east, the Great Lakes in the northeast, (roughly) the Canadian border, the Rocky Mountains in the west, and the Gulf of Mexico in the south. <S> With a few exceptions, most rivers in this region flow southwest, south, or southeast. <S> In this basin, "downstream" is toward the Gulf of Mexico (that is, toward the "South"). <A> There has been some similar answers to this one. <S> I'm not an expert, I'm not even american, but if you watch this video historian Colin Calloway gives some insight as of why this might be such a common term. <S> Link to video: http://www.choices.edu/resources/scholarsonline/calloway/cc6.php <A> I'm from the Enumclaw, WA. <S> To my cohorts and me, "back east" basically refers to anything north of the Carolinas and east of Indiana or Ohio-ish. <S> It does not reference people who used to live on the east coast. <S> It's a loose geographical reference. <S> East of the midwest and north of the south is the most common usage, but I have heard people refer to places like Chicago as back east. <S> However, in my humble opinion that would be incorrect usage.
| "Back east" is a west coast-ism to refer to the east coast, as a corollary to "out west".
|
How to politely ask someone to repeat what they said after they've already repeated it once? If you do not clearly hear what another person said, you can say "Excuse me" or "Pardon me" to ask them to repeat it politely. But if you still don't get it, what should you say to ask them to repeat it again? Will a native speaker consider it rude? <Q> I don't mind if people ask me more than twice, but from observing people - twice seems to be a social norm. <S> I would usually say: <S> What? <S> What was that? <S> Sorry, what? <S> I didn't get that. <S> I didn't catch that. <S> I missed that. <S> Say that again. <S> Remember that it takes a fair bit of skill to say "What?" without sounding rude, so if you are worried about sounding rude, don't use "What?" and don't forget to add please and thank you. <S> Native speakers, however, will often just say "What?". <S> If you are asking a second time you can add "still" or some other modifier: <S> I still didn't get that. <S> I still didn't catch that. <S> I missed that again. <S> Sorry, one more time. <S> When asking multiple times "What?" sounds rude very quickly. <A> In British English, the polite way to ask someone to repeat what they just said would be: <S> Pardon me, could you repeat that please? <S> This is sometimes shortened to <S> Pardon me? <S> or even Pardon? <A> Depending on circumstances I usually resort to one of two tactics: If I've heard/understood more of the sentence when it was repeated the first time, I'd say something like: "Sorry, I still didn't catch the bit after <whatever I did hear properly <S> >. <S> Can you say that again, please?" <S> If the person's repeat didn't make it clearer for me at all, I'd resort to humour and say something like: "I've gone deaf in one ear <S> and I can't hear out the other. <S> Could you repeat that for me again?", or "Please excuse me, I washed my ears this morning <S> and I can't do a thing with them. <S> Do you mind saying that again, a bit louder/slower for me, please?". <A> There are too much ways to ask it. <S> But I know and idiom: Come Again? <S> Source: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Come+again <A> Say, instance <S> Pardon me <S> could you repeat the saying or word.
| Most native speakers of English will only ask for a repeat once or twice, and after that will pretend they understood, so as not to appear rude.
|
Has the word mate always at least some sexual context? Mating is the term used for sexual activity, mostly for animals. Is there anything wrong with mate ? My mate could mean my sexual partner, but I've heard that in less obvious contexts, such as someone was talking about his roommate (a man), himself being declared heterosexual. I was a bit embarrassed by this word, but I haven't asked. So, does mate always imply at least a bit of sexual context? <Q> No, not at all. <S> In fact, the word mate is quite often used in colloquial Australian and British English. <S> G'day Mate (Good day Mate) <S> Being one of the phrases quite often associated with Australia. <S> Mate in this context means "friend" or "buddy", and is not gender specific (used by both men and women to refer to men and women) <S> Some other usages, that are fairly common: <S> A mate of mine went to Sydney last week. <S> Are you alright, mate ? <S> What time are your mates arriving? <A> Think of mate as related to pair . <S> A pair is composed of two things that belong together, each thing in the pair is a mate. <S> To elaborate: <S> One of my socks has gone missing, I'm looking for its mate. <S> When you find the missing sock, you complete the pair; the sock you couldn't find is the mate to the sock you already had. <S> The two lions faced each other on the savannah, fighting over their potential mate. <S> In this case the two male lions are fighting over a female lion, and whoever wins will be <S> their mate --this is as you mentioned in your question, where a mate is the second half of a sexual pair. <S> (This can also be applied to humans and be grammatically correct, but it will sound odd.) <S> Penguins mate for life. <S> Animals again, and obviously there's a sexual element there, but this is about the pairing of the two as well. <S> They're going to stay together as partners for life. <S> John Smith was the pirate captain's first mate. <S> As StoneyB commented, mate can also be used to describe officers on ships. <S> The first mate is the captain's right-hand man. <S> Good day, mate! <S> As others have mentioned, mate is also Austrailian slang used to refer to a friend. <S> So as you can see, there are many different contexts in which mate has different meanings! <A> Mate means different things, depending on the locale and dialect, for instance: <S> G'day Mate 'lright, mate? <S> Uses the word mate to mean singular you in many dialects of English, particularly Australian English and Cockney and Northern British English. <S> Now look here <S> , mate Is an intensified aggressive form of the word "you" in some dialects of British English Me and my mates are going to go out later for drinks <S> What time are your mates going to get here? <S> Is an informal meaning of "friends", in many dialects of English, but particularly as spoken in Northern England. <S> Capitan Silver, this is First Mate Johnny Williams. <S> In this context, mate and first mate are naval titles. <S> You'll sometimes see this as well in the "Pirate Vernacular": <S> Ahoy there, mateys! <S> In this case, "mateys" is an old fashioned (and no longer grammatical) plural of mate, and is an address to the crew. <S> It does not imply that the crew are either friends or sexual partners of the captain. <S> Finally, it is important to note that mate almost always <S> does have a sexual context whenever the discussion is specifically about non-human animals. <S> In this case it can be either a verb or a noun. <S> We're flying in Kanga to Sydney zoo to mate with Zippy the Kangaroo who lives there. <S> Penguins mate for life Liara, the lioness at London Zoo is the mate of Rory the Lion <S> As we can see, the peacock spreads its tail features to attract a mate. <S> Do not use the word "mate" meaning a sexual partner in the context of another human being outside of the context of academic medical research. <S> Doing so is very insulting, because it suggests that the partner is almost in-human, and suggests a coldness or clinicalness to the activity that your listeners would likely find uncomfortable. <A> In British English, you could say "See you then, mate." without implying anything sexual; it is just an informal form of address between men, or boys. <S> It is also informally used to mean friend , as in "I was with a mate." <S> In plumber's mate , mate means assistant . <A> I agree with Deco, with the added caveat that in Australian English mate can sometimes be used to express anger or aggression. <S> " <S> Listen here mate..." or "look mate..." are often used to begin making a forceful point, or to tell someone to back off. <S> Furthermore, calling a stranger mate can in certain circumstances get a negative response, as some people don't like strangers being casual with them. <S> Only a skilled speaker should attempt to use this word on a stranger. <A> Like most British sayings it is derived from its Naval history. <S> " <S> Ship mates"Americans say 'buddy'or 'dude' Spanish say 'amigo' Russians say ' <S> droog' etc. <S> British/Australians/New Zealanders say 'mate'. <S> Nobody will take offence :)
| In my experience, mate as used to describe another human being essentially never refers to any kind of sexual activity or sexual partner. So the short answer to your question is no. Mate is also an older English title, meaning "member" or "partner" (in a non-sexual context), and this holds over in many seafaring and military contexts:
|
How much should I trust Wiktionary? My first reference that I use for English words is Wiktionary. I primarily do so because it's a not-for-profit project, so I don't have to worry about it suddenly charging for subscriptions, or that it will have advertising that links to malware. But recently, I received some comments saying that I shouldn't trust Wiktionary when it says some spellings are superior to other spellings: I've argued with Wiktionay for years that it has no business declaring one spelling to be the alternative to another. They should use a heading that doesn't lend superiority to one form such as Spellings or Other spellings . Wiktionary entries vary as to how one word is given the "main" entry and others the "alternatives". Sometimes there's a Google Fight, sometimes it's first come first served, sometimes there's a small battle between who is right among British English and American English! Do not trust these Wiktionary labels! and Another piece of advice: Don't expect any dictionary to be prescriptive unless it's older than Webster's Third New World Dictionary. By this time all major English dictionaries published in Britain and USA had firmly chosen the path of descriptivism. That means they claim to describe how the language is used, and specifically do not tell people the correct way to use the language. For questions of usage you would do better to consult style guides, such as Strunk and White . So now I'm wondering how much I should trust Wiktionary. Currently, my thoughts are: Wiktionary is a single source of information. As with any information source, if you really want to be sure, you'd want to check multiple, independent, sources. Wiktionary theoretically has the same vulnerabilities as Wikipedia. These include people engaging in internet vandalism , people editing a wiki to push an agenda, people who are editing Wiktionary in good faith but who are biased, and lack of editorial oversight. However, as Wiktionary isn't as high-profile as Wikipedia, and Wiktionary is slightly more difficult to edit than Wikipedia, I don't think these are major problems. Wiktionary sometimes incorporates information from out-dated public domain sources. Wiktionary provides information that a dictionary shouldn't be providing. With regards to point 4, what information does Wiktionary provide that a dictionary shouldn't provide? Is it merely being prescriptivist in the spelling of a word, or are there other ways it's providing information it shouldn't? For example, should I use Wiktionary to decide whether talking about "a Japanese" rather than "a Japanese person" is offensive ? <Q> From my personal experience, Oxford Dictionaries has became my "first reference" - Wiktionary may have most words, but their entry quality often varies a lot, and many have very limited range of listed meanings. <S> Meanwhile, Oxford Dictionaries seems to go for depth instead of breadth; each entry delves into a large number of meanings - I had quite a few questions on EL&U closed as "General Reference" because I'd check Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster and such, while only OED contained an entry for the meaning I was looking for. <S> 1) <S> Still, first Oxford Dictionaries is updated slower than Wiktionary; it may be "behind the times" concerning some entries. <S> So, if you have doubts about Oxford Dictionaries entry, feel free to: <S> Check Wiktionary <S> Check Wiktionary's "History" page for given entry and find when the given meaning was added. <S> If it was added recently, you may trust it's too new for Oxford Dictionaries. <S> Check Urban Dictionary . <S> It's completely unreliable but the bleeding edge of slang that doesn't make its way into more "respectable" dictionaries for years yet. <S> In essence, going from most reliable and thorough and narrow to most unreliable, shallow and broad; Wiktionary is a step in the middle of that route and a good choice if it's to be your one-stop resource, but not the best if you actually want to research given word. <S> 1) example: <S> Wiktionary, along with a bunch of others I checked did not have the meaning of grunt as mechanical power, especially in a motor vehicle . <A> Being an administrator on Wiktionary, my answer may be slightly biased. <S> This is one advantage over OED or Webster. <S> 2) <S> Wiktionary (or volunteers who work on the website) strives to be descriptive. <S> However, because we are all biased in one way or another, sometimes prescriptive information gets included in the dictionary. <S> Unfortunately, because it is editable by every man and their dog on the Internet, sometimes these flaws get overlooked. <S> 3) <S> One may consider Wiktionary as a bridge between Urban Dictionary and more authoritative dictionaries like Oxford. <S> As long as a term passes the CFI , it may be included provided references are given for the term. <S> This is often at the discretion of administrators such as myself and if a term is disputed, it gets put on RFD or RFV to be checked and dealt with accordingly. <S> There are also issues such as the offensiveness of certain terms, which are often dealt with on Tea room . <S> This IS one of the best things about Wiktionary. <S> Everything is open for discussion. <S> I believe that in order to understand how Wiktionary works, one needs to tread its waters by contributing to it and engaging oneself in active discussions. <S> Just a note to the other contributors to ELL, if you find a term is missing an entry or a definition. <S> You are welcome to add it, instead of complaining about it being absent. <S> Wiktionary is a wiki <S> and I am sure by now, most people would be familiar with the concept. <S> This is how I started. <S> I made mistakes along the way, but be sensible and be ready to learn and you will go a long way. <S> There are some extremely talented people on the website, some fluent in a dozen languages. <S> Maybe you will be one of them too. <A> When I want to know what modern people use, I do Google searches, including News searches and Books searches. <S> When I want to know what people who like to edit dictionaries as a hobby think, I use Wiktionary. <S> When I want to know what a respected British dictionary has to say, I consult my OED Microprint. <S> When I want to know what a respected American dictionary has to say, I consult my Webster's 3rd. <S> When I want to know what a respected Australian dictionary has to say, I consult my Macquarie's. <S> When I want to know what self-styled experts think, I go to the library and look in style guides like Strunk & White <S> (I don't want to actually own one). <S> When I want to learn all I can about a word or phrase , I use all of these resources and have been known to visit multiple libraries and bookshops to find as many different dictionaries and other references as possible. <S> I trust <S> some of these sources and take some with a grain of salt , <S> but I don't take any single one as an absolute and incontestable authority. <S> When I want to give back to the community I edit <S> Wiktionary and participate on english.stackexchange.com and <S> ell.stackexchange.com <A> Trust <S> No One (1) . <S> It's the only scientific approach. <S> There's no silver bullet. <S> Dictionaries are written by people. <S> People make mistakes; As a language learner, it is well possible that you simply misunderstand the meaning they wanted to convey; Languages evolve . <S> What was correct yesterday is not necessarily correct today. <S> Remember, <S> five years ago it was grammatical to write e-mail . <S> Today, email is preferred. <S> It is well possible that a single source is not updated; <S> Using various sources not only helps learning different opinions. <S> It also makes you familiar with different methods of explanation, a good asset by itself. <S> As per #4, the answer is the same. <S> Some sources may not simply contain sufficient information about whether or not a certain word is offensive in every geographic area or logical context. <S> (1) <S> As a nice exception, you may always trust me. :) <A> Like Wikipedia, the problem with Wiktionary is its sheer importance; it's the largest single repository. <S> It is not well structured. <S> Like every dictionary, it is demonstrably biased. <S> It is extensively cited by linguistic researchers; this practice is discouraged by the community as it does not claim or attempt to be authoritative. <S> YMMV, you're just going to have to make a decision whether it fits your goals and specs.
| 1) Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary and each Wiktionary site attempts to translate words from all known languages into one single language (e.g., en.wikt for all languages into English).
|
Can "bento" be used without "box"? Is "bento" by itself likely to be understood by native speakers of English, and feel natural, without the word "box" afterwards? For example, can you say "This is a photo of a bento I ate yesterday"? Assuming that you can use the word "ate" with bento without meaning that you ate the container as well! <Q> Bento is not an English word per se , but is a loan word from Japanese. <S> It's also not in particularly common usage, so you may expect some quizzical looks by native English speakers who are not familiar with Japanese cuisine. <S> In direct answer to your question though, the answer is Yes, Bento can be used in isolation, as can be seen on the wikipedia entry for Bento : <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bento <S> Bento <S> (弁当 bentō?)[1] is a single-portion takeout or home-packed meal common in Japanese cuisine. <S> A traditional bento holds rice, fish or meat, with pickled or cooked vegetables, usually in a box-shaped container. <S> Containers range from disposable mass produced to hand crafted lacquerware. <S> Bento are readily available in many places throughout Japan, including convenience stores, bento shops (弁当屋 bentō-ya?), railway stations, and department stores. <S> However, Japanese homemakers often spend time and energy on a carefully prepared lunch box for their spouse, child, or themselves . <S> Bento can be elaborately arranged in a style called "kyara-ben" or "character bento". <S> Kyaraben (キャラ弁?) is typically decorated to look like popular Japanese cartoon (anime) characters, characters from comic books (manga), or video game characters. <S> Another popular bento style is "oekakiben" or "picture bento". <S> This is decorated to look like people, animals, buildings and monuments, or items such as flowers and plants. <S> Contests are often held where bento arrangers compete for the most aesthetically pleasing arrangements. <A> Often you can use the loanword as a qualifier though this is not such a case. <S> Of course if you know your audience you can adapt. <S> If you're talking to Japanophiles or expats for instance. <S> Personally I'm pretty sure I say " <S> bento box" more often even when I'm in Japan. <A> The NOAD reports bento as word, and it says its meanings are: a lacquered or decorated wooden Japanese lunchbox. <S> a Japanese-style packed lunch, consisting of such items as rice, vegetables, and sashimi (raw fish with condiments). <A> I think you can use it that way. <S> Here's a link to just such a usage. <S> This dish was inspired by a bento I ate on a train ride [...]
| As a general rule, when using loanwords that are new enough that you expect not all of your audience to know them, use them in combination with an English word. You can use bento when referring to the lunchbox, or the Japanese-style packed lunch without adding box . With "box" you could be asked for clarification "what kind of box", without it the listener is possibly more likely to silently remain confused or mishear some other word.
|
Are words ending in -ly adverbs? Adverbs often end in -ly . But the word friendly is not an adverb, is it? A friendly advice is incorrect , but a friendly person is correct. Is the word friendly very unusual or are there many non-adverbs ending in -ly? <Q> This is fundamentally a historical question, and if asked on ELU would deserve a very long and interesting answer. <S> Here I will offer only so much history as might help a learner avoid confusion. <S> The -ly ending on adjectives descends from an Old English suffix -lic <S> which was very often employed to turn a noun into an adjective. <S> Consequently there are many adjectives today which have <S> the -ly <S> suffix: <S> manly, womanly, daily, kingly, cowardly , to name only a very few in addition to your friendly . <S> This use declined in Early Modern English, and today it is no longer ‘productive’—that is, we no longer employ the ending to create adjectives. <S> (Today we mostly use <S> the <S> -ish or -like or -y suffixes, or just use the bare noun as an adjective, or create an adjective from Greek or Latin roots.) <S> The -ly ending on adverbs descends from a very similar OE suffix -lice . <S> When the adjective -ly fell into disuse, <S> the adverbial -ly had the field to itself. <S> Well into EModE, however, it was more usual to use the unmodified adjective in an adverbial sense. <S> In the 17th and 18th century, however, there was a strong movement towards rationalizing the written language; and at this time the -ly ending became what it is today, the standard and almost universal way of distinguishing an adverb from its corresponding adjective. <A> Words ending in -ly can be adjectives and adverbs, although -ly is better known as an adverb suffix. <S> Yes, friendly is an adjective formed from the noun friend , but you cannot convert friendly in an adverb adding another -ly: <S> * friendlyly . <S> So, you have to use friendly in both cases. <S> Other adjectives ending in -ly could be, for example, lovely or scholarly . <S> (Ref. <S> English Grammar <S> Today - Cambridge) <A> -ly is the suffix used to form adjectives, and adverbs from adjectives. <S> In the first case, the adjectives have two meanings: having the quality of ( brotherly ) recurring at intervals of ( hourly , quarterly ) <S> As far as I know, friendly advice is correct: Friendly is also an adjective and, as in friendly person , it is followed by a noun. <S> In British English, friendly is adjective, and noun; the adverb is friendlily .
| Friendly can be used as adverb, at least in American English; alternatively, friendlily is adverb too.
|
Expression for "running/getting out of somewhere really fast" I am looking for a word or expression to mean running out of somewhere very fast because of being terrified of something, or to avoid meeting someone. <Q> Here's a handy single word: flee . <S> You may flee a place or a person or a threat. <A> Since you are looking also for an 'expression', I would suggest: like a bat out of hell <S> if you go somewhere like a bat out of hell, you go very fast <S> He ran out of the building like a bat out of hell . <S> (Ref. <S> Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. <S> Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006.) <A> It always sounds a bit "slangy" to me, but a nice word for OP's context is... <S> skedaddle - to depart quickly or hurriedly; run away . <S> ... <S> another one I like (esp. <S> US usage, also somewhat informal, as are most apart from flee ) is... <S> high-tail it out of here deriving from the raised tails of fleeing animals (as deer or rabbits) . <A> In Northern English (e.g. Manchester, Liverpool), this phrase is quite common When those guys showed up, we legged it . <S> In US informal English there's also "skedaddle": <S> When those guys showed up, we skedaddled outta there! <S> Perhaps more commonly you can always use an intensifier to impress upon the listener that you got out of there quickly: <S> When those guys showed up, we got the hell outta there! <A> You could use the verb bolt . <S> NOAD defines it like this: <S> As a side note, in recent years, this option has been a very handy word for sports headlines . <A> (American) slang includes bail , scram , and vamoose . <S> Variations on get the hell <S> Rats leaving a sinking ship is maybe not exactly what you are looking for. <A> "Skip out" can be used in the said contexts as in John was arrested July 22 after he skipped out on a $300 bill earlier at a local bar and ran away. <S> Macmillan dictionary defines it as a phrasal verb which means to leave a place quickly, usually because you do not want to be noticed or want to avoid paying money
| outta there include get out of Dodge and get the hell out of Dodge . Similar terms include scarper, leg it, beat it, clear off .
|
Which is right in this sentence: semicolon or colon? Daylight began to forsake the red-room; it was past four o'clock, and the beclouded afternoon was tending to drear twilight. I heard the rain still beating continuously on the staircase window, and the wind howling in the grove behind the hall; I grew by degrees cold as a stone, and then my courage sank. My habitual mood of humiliation, self-doubt, forlorn depression, fell damp on the embers of my decaying ire. All said I was wicked, and perhaps I might be so; what thought had I been but just conceiving of starving myself to death? That certainly was a crime: and was I fit to die? Or was the vault under the chancel of Gateshead Church an inviting bourne? In such vault I had been told did Mr. Reed lie buried; and led by this thought to recall his idea, I dwelt on it with gathering dread. (Jane Eyere) The highlighted punctuation (after "I might be so") is a semi-colon in Gutenberg eBook, and a colon in Penguin Books. Which is right, or more proper in the context? <Q> The Purdue OWL says: Use a semicolon to join 2 independent clauses when the second clause restates the first or when the two clauses are of equal emphasis. <S> Use a colon to join 2 independent clauses when you wish to emphasize the second clause. <S> (Those are only two uses for those two punctuation marks; other uses are also discussed and explained.) <S> So, sometimes, the choice comes down to this: What does the writer want to emphasize? <S> Here's the original quote: <S> All said I was wicked, and perhaps I might be so; what thought had I been but just conceiving of starving myself to death? <S> A simpler paraphrase might be: <S> I might be a terrible person; after all, hadn't I just been thinking of starving myself? <S> or, I might be a terrible person: after all, hadn't I just been thinking of starving myself? <S> It's a little hard to tell if the second part of this should be "emphasized," or if it should hold "equal" weight. <S> It's a judgment call. <S> Moreover, there's another possible justification for a colon as well: <S> Use a colon after an independent clause when it is followed by a list, a quotation, appositive, or other idea directly related to the independent clause. <S> The "or other idea directly related to the independent clause" part seems pretty open-ended. <S> In this case, the question that follows the first independent clause could fall into that category. <S> In short, the two punctuation marks have overlapping uses, and the usage guidelines won't always prescribe a clear-cut preference, or indicate that one would be correct and the other would be wrong. <A> One useful way of thinking about it is that a semi-colon, like a comma, a period or question mark, is essentially disjunctive : it marks a pause at which the line of thought is broken or bent. <S> It is a ‘hinge’ on which the sentence turns. <S> A colon, however, is conjunctive : it marks a pause following which the line of thought is resumed by an amplification or explanation. <S> It is the final jump from the end of the diving board which impels the sentence to its conclusion. <S> My Norton Critical Edition of JE <S> abstains from ‘definitive textual collation’ <S> , so I can’t tell you what Brontë really wrote. <S> But I should say the colon is called for; what follows the point defines precisely the phrase immediately before it, which is a classic use of the colon. <A> After not seeing her for so many years, I was amazed to find that she still looked precisely as she always had: like Dan Rather. <S> After four days at the weeklong "Rippin' 'n' Flippin'" outdoor music festival, I realized three things: Drugs are bad, deodorant is good, and gophers are edible. <S> If what follows the colon is an independent clause or a quotation, then it should be capitalized, as in the last example I used. <S> This is at least what it is done in American English; British English could have different rules about capitalizing after colons. <S> Supposing that the editor just changed the punctuation mark, the author used the semi-colon, as the following sentence is not capitalized. <S> Semi-colons should be used, for example, in compound sentences to join a closely related independent clause which is not joined by a coordinating junction. <S> I often blow my own horn, trumpet my achievements, and beat the drum for my career; it's my way of saying to the world, "Hey, I am fit as a fiddle, and I don't fiddle around or play second fiddle to anyone!" <S> In the sentence shown in the question, I would rather use the semi-colon. <S> The examples have been taken from Comma sense: a fun-damental guide to punctuation , Richard Lederer and John Shore.
| I would use the a colon when the phrase that follows explains, or expands the sentence before the colon.
|
"the wife" instead of "my wife", are there any other contexts where a possessive pronoun gets replaced by a definite article? In English, one occasionally sees a replacement of my wife by the wife , such as in this sentence : there was a sudden thud and I joked to the wife that someone had run into us Does this construction occur for any other words than wife ? The husband ? The mother ? Of course in many contexts it can ( The car , The child , etc.), but I have the impression that in the context above, it's somehow a special idiom. Is it? Does the meaning of a sentence change by replacing my wife by the wife ? Can the wife replace only my wife , or also your/his/her wife or even their/your/our wives ? Are there any rules I should be aware of for this construct? <Q> Using the instead of my in "the wife" does subtly change the meaning of a sentence it's used in. <S> Assuming the woman in question is the wife of the speaker, compare <S> It's my wife on the phone. <S> to <S> It's the wife on the phone. <S> Using <S> the instead of my puts a bit of social distance between the speaker and their wife. <S> Even if the listener knows that the speaker is talking to the speaker's wife, the use of <S> the decouples the couple. <S> Using the wife when talking about someone else's wife is possible, but is different in meaning. <S> In this context you can use the wife to mean his wife , her wife , their wife or their wives , i.e. it can only apply to a third person pronoun. <S> Imagine A is on the phone and B wants to know who A is talking to: B: Are you talking to the husband? <S> A: <S> No, it's the wife. <S> So A is talking to the wife of the couple they are interested in. <S> The wife would not work if someone's name was used: <S> B: Are you talking to Mr. Jenkins? <S> A: <S> No, it's the wife. <S> Here the wife would be taken to mean A's wife, rather than Mr. Jenkin's wife, although it is possible that there might be confusion as to what A means. <S> As Barrie England points out, you can also use the wife to mean your wife as in "How is the wife. <S> " I agree with him that this is only something that would be done if you are sure your remark won't be taken as an insult. <S> Other constructs that are similar: <S> Female <S> The wife (fiancée, girlfriend) <S> The old lady (and other such euphemisms for wife, "the ball and chain", etc.) <S> The mother in law <S> Male <S> The husband (fiance, boyfriend) <S> The old man (and other such euphemisms for husband) <S> The father in law <S> The pattern is that someone uses <S> the in place of <S> my when they are married to or related by marriage to someone and don't like, or are pretending not to like, the person in question. <A> The wife is found in British English only in certain contexts and only in the speech of certain speakers. <S> It would typically be used by one man speaking to another, and it is generally a working class, or lower middle class, expression. <S> Many women will regard it as derogatory. <S> To answer your specific questions, no, the doesn’t occur in this way before the names of other family members. <S> It doesn’t change the meaning, but it expresses a certain attitude, perhaps one ironic of tolerance and inevitability, towards the married state. <S> It normally replaces only my wife , but you might hear things like 'How's the wife?'. <S> Probably the only rule you should be aware of is not to use it unless you are very, very sure that it will be received positively. <S> It is something which I can imagine only very few non-native speakers ever saying. <A> The can be informally used instead of the possessive when referring to a person with whom the speaker (or the addressed person) is associated. <S> I am meeting the boss. <S> How is the family? <S> I cannot comment about how much times the is used instead of the possessive from native speakers, but as English learner, I would suggest you not to keep using the instead of the possessive. <S> Excessively using an expression is probably one of the mistakes English learners do. <S> Then, it is an informal usage of the , and it should not be in contexts where a formal sentence should be used. <A> Yes, men sometimes refer to their wives as "the wife" instead of "my wife". <S> Note you might use the article "the" in front of "wife" as a completely normal use of the article. <S> Like a bank official might say, "Both the husband and the wife must sign the loan papers. <S> " Of course here he doesn't mean "my wife", i.e. the wife of the bank official, but rather, the person who, of the couple he is talking to or about, the one who is "the wife" and the one who is "the husband" must sign. <S> Maybe women say this when talking to each other, but I've never heard it. <S> Parents will often say "the children" or "the kids" instead of "my children" or "my kids". <S> Less often, someone will say "the house" instead of "my house". <S> Like, "I've got to stop by THE HOUSE to pick up some papers on the way to this appointment." <S> Similarly people say "the office" for "my office", like, "Even though it's a holiday, I have to go to the office and get this work done." <S> I'm hard-pressed to think of other examples of using "the" when you really mean "my". <S> " <S> The job" comes up sometimes. <S> Like, "Man, the job is really getting me down." <S> Of course there are many times when you might use "the" to refer to something that belongs to you (in whatever sense of the possessive), without it really being a substitute for "my". <S> Like if someone said, "I put the chair in the living room", if it's his house and his chair, he might just as well have said, "I put my chair in my living room", but he's not really substituting "the" for "my". <S> He just doesn't find it necessary to specify that he is talking about something that belongs to him in this case.
| I have never heard a woman call her husband, "the husband".
|
What is the opposite of saying "Standing by one's word/promise"? I want a word or an expression which means not standing by or sticking with one's promise , in the context of this expression: First he promised me something but later he refused it; he should try to stand by his word. <Q> As Wendi and Matt have indicated, break is probably the most common word to use when describing an unkept promise. <S> If you wanted an alternative, though, you might consider renege : <S> Macmillan defines this verb as: to decide not to do something that you promised to do American Heritage <S> uses the definition: to fail to carry out a promise or commitment <S> Here are a few examples of the word being used in contemporary news stories: <S> The stakeholders, who were in a one-day stakeholders workshop, said if the government and district assembly do not take up construction of roads in the area particularly commercial roads as a priority, they would renege in fulfilling their task obligation to the state. <S> It’s all about investing in jobs — and by the way, if that company decided to renege on its promises, it would have to return a portion of the state money. <S> They paid it with the promise that the subsidies would help them recoup that money. <S> Now Pence wants to renege on that deal. <S> It isn’t fair, and it shouldn’t happen. <S> It's pronounced /rɪˈnɛɡ/ or /rɪˈnɪɡ/ in American English, with a ‘short’ vowel in the stressed syllable; in British English it appears to be pronounced with a ‘long’ vowel, /rɪˈneɪg/ or /rɪˈniːɡ/. <S> (Pronunciation information courtesy of StoneyB). <A> In keeping with your example sentence: <S> First he promised me something but later on he refused; he broke his word. <S> or First he promised me something but later on he refused; he broke his promise to me. <A> When you say that one has "stood by their word", you've implied that they've fulfilled a specific obligation or promise they made by virtue of their character. <S> However, to say that one "stands by their word" it means that, in general, they can be relied upon to fulfill promises when they're made. <S> Others have addressed the negation of the first case, that is that one "breaks their word" or "breaks promises". <S> However, if one cannot be relied upon and makes promises that they may or may not fulfill, you can say that they "waffle" or "vacillate", or that they're "wafflers". <S> These words are commonly used to describe politicians who make hollow promises to win the favor of supporters. <S> A "waffler" may or may not fulfill promises they've made. <S> Their making such a promise doesn't indicate any incremental degree of faith that they will follow up with action. <A> The most common expression in my experience is to "keep" (meaning to stand by one's word) or "break" a promise (meaning the opposite), like so: I like Dave. <S> Dave always keeps his promises <S> Joe promised to finish the document by 5pm, but he broke his promise <S> I never break my promises <A> In addition to some of the other answers, there are some idiomatic ways of saying this: If the speaker warned in advance that they would not be able to complete the deal, they are said to have withdrawn it or <S> taken it back <S> "I know I promised I'd help you move house on Sunday, but I'm going to have to take that back, sorry. <S> " <S> Today the government withdrew their promise to deliver a surplus. <S> However if there was no warning given, or if the person giving the promise had no reasonable excuse, you can say: She promised me X, but then she went back on it <S> We made a deal <S> but then he welshed on it. <S> Note that the origin of this is unknown <S> - it is not a known racial slur (against Welsh people) as "Indian giver" is against American First Nation people. <S> He fell through on his promise Fell through can also be applied the arrangements that have failed themselves, "the contract fell through". <S> Specifically with contractual or legal promises you can use default <S> : <S> Our buyer in the UK defaulted on our contract. <S> Mike defaulted on his credit card.
| I believe the expression you're looking for is "broke his word / broke his promise".
|
Can ‘should’ be omitted, as in this case? "What is all this?" demanded another voice peremptorily; and Mrs. Reed came along the corridor, her cap flying wide, her gown rustling stormily. "Abbot and Bessie, I believe I gave orders that Jane Eyre should be left in the red-room till I came to her myself." (Jane Eyre) Can should be omitted, as in "The king commanded that all the people [should] be assembled at once."? <Q> If 'should' is kept as it is, it won't make much of a difference. <S> You can write it without 'should' too. <S> What is the context in your phrase? <A> I think, this is rather a relict of an old form of be in the context of intention or obligation: <S> World English Dictionary : (7) (takes an infinitive) expresses intention, expectation, supposition, or obligation: <S> the president is to arrive at 9.30; you are not to leave before I say so <S> The Free Dictionary : (2b) <S> To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. <S> Woe is me. <S> (6) <S> To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be. <S> In this context, "I gave orders that Jane Eyre {was to} be left in the red-room" , sounds plausible. <A> I think they are similar but not the same. <S> The phrase " <S> The king commanded that all the people should be assembled at once.", while technically correct, makes it seem that the king's command was optional. <S> Probably not. <S> Also in the first example, "orders" and "should" do not really convey the same intent. <S> In context it may make sense though. <S> I think better phrases would be " <S> The king commanded that all the people are to be assembled at once." and "Abbot and Bessie <S> , I believe I gave orders that Jane Eyre is to be left in the red-room till I came to her myself."
| If it is a 'compulsion', then you may replace 'should' with 'must'.
|
"Had a talk to him lately" or "had a talk with him recently" I've seen and heard both ways of saying it: I had a talk to him lately I had a talk with him recently What is the difference between the two? Which one is more common? Which one is grammatically more valid? Are these two interchangeable? <Q> The second is the normal way of putting it. <S> To him normally follows the verb, with him , the noun. <S> We’d say ‘I talked to him yesterday’, but ‘I had a talk with him yesterday.’ <A> There can be a subtle difference. <S> 'Recently' usually refers only to a time period. <S> 'Lately' can also carry connotations that (in the context you mention) <S> something noteworthy has occurred between the last time you talked to him (if it wasn't very recently) and now. <S> To illustrate, consider person A saying: "John is going to the concert on Saturday" If person B replies: "Have you talked to him recently?", that would usually indicate that person B is speaking from curiosity; he is interested in any news about John that might have come up during the conversation. <S> If person B replies: "Have you talked to him lately?" <S> , that would probably suggest that person B knows something about John and a change in his concert attendance plans, that person A doesn't. <S> The above isn't set in concrete - and <S> both words can be used in both circumstances confusing the issue further - but this is a fairly common usage pattern. <A> "I had a talk to him lately." is incorrect grammar. <S> In these phrases, the verb is had, and "a talk" is a noun (the object). <S> Therefore the prepositional phrase needs to be a state "with him", not "to him" which is an action. <S> You could say "I talked to him recently", where the verb "talk" is an action verb. <S> In these examples, "lately" sounds unnatural to me <S> and I would use "recently" instead.
| "I had a talk with him recently" is correct.
|
What is the plural of "brother", "brothers" or "brethren"? In English books, I read that the plural of brother was given as brethren , but I hear people in movies or serials using brothers . Which one is correct? Is it the difference due to difference in American and British English? <Q> Use brothers in both speech and writing. <S> Brethren is a very old plural which is no longer in use, except in very narrow contexts: in works of fiction which depict historical times, or try to create a similar 'atmosphere'; in religious (or quasi-religious) works which embrace the language of the King James Bible; and in works which allude to uses of this sort, either mockingly or affectionately. <A> The plural of brother as in "male sibling" is always brothers . <S> He had six brothers and three sisters, so family gatherings tended to be large affairs. <S> The origin of brethren is an old type of plural for brother , but it is no longer used in that sense. <S> Nowadays, it is only ever used in the context of fraternal or religious organizations: you can be a member of the brethren, but you don't have brethren. <S> Bottom line: 99.999% of the time <S> , the plural you should use is brothers . <A> In modern English, brethren is uncommon, and it no longer ever refers to your male siblings. <S> It can be used in the following scenarios: To refer to members of your religious group (esp. <S> some Protestant Christian groups) <S> The Brethren are meeting on Sunday at 4 for Bible-study class at Julie's house. <S> Uncommonly it can also refer to some other pseudo-religious or old fashioned clubs and societies: <S> Meet Jeff. <S> He is one of our Brethren from the Masons' in Bellingham here to visit for a week. <S> To refer to members of your extended family (uncommon British English, esp. <S> referring to extended family en-masse ): <S> We're going to my grandparent's house this Christmas. <S> The entire Smith brethren are descending on Yorkshire, so we'll also be able to Christine and Jeff. <A> In fraternal organizations founded back when archaic English was contemporary English (such as the Masons), "brethren" is used to make formal address to assembled brothers, or formal plural reference to brothers. <S> In casual conversation, "brothers" seems to be usual. <S> There is a corresponding word for a sisterhood - "sistren" - which appears to be having a revival, if Google is any guide. <A> Those who also know basic Spanish grammar might find it easier to think of word like thee, ye, thou, brethren, and such as being like the formal "Vosotros" form, which have mostly been displaced by the less formal "Tu" form, of you, brother, yes, and such. <S> When teaching English as a Second language, this made sense to the Hispanic kids when helping them with Shakespeare's English. <A> it further shows the connectdness between the group that is refered. <S> The Holly bible <S> especially KJV refers Brethren showing the Onenes/interconnectdness
| Brothers is the correct term for referring to your male siblings. Brethren is mostly used to refer community faith which share common faith/belief/character....
|
What word can I use for saying 'Beyond Human' Consider this expression What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was beyond human, he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team. What similar words can I use here for "beyond human"? <Q> In general "superhuman" is probably the best choice. <S> In the example given, "unquestionable loyalty" probably describes him better. <S> But that would not be "superhuman". <A> The term selfless may be applied here if your intent is 'extra ordinary gesture from Brad Pitt to his current team' <S> selfless : Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; unselfish <S> What Brad Pitt did in the movie "Money Ball" was truly selfless - he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team. <S> Selfless acts are often viewed by others as superhuman and sometimes implausible because people are generally expected to act in their own rational self interest and selfless acts don't fit that mold. <A> Angelic. <S> Exceptional. <S> Exemplary. <S> Kingly. <S> Superior. <S> Above and beyond. <S> Beyond the call of duty. <S> Beyond belief. <S> Noble. <S> (You can emphasize "noble" by restructuring to: "showed true nobility." <S> ) <S> Mind-blowing. <S> Unimpeachable. <S> And many more. <S> It all depends on the connotation you're after. <A> A phrase works best for me to describe Brad Pitt's character's act of generosity: "the epitome of selflessness" From the Google dictionary: e·pit·o·me (/iˈpitəmē/) <S> Noun: <S> 1.A person or thing that is a perfect example of a particular quality or type: "she is the epitome of elegance and taste". <A> Something else that sounds good is "incredible," which means "so powerful that I almost can't believe it." <S> "Unbelievable" is a pretty obvious one, too. <S> For your specific situation, I would go with "extraordinary. <S> " It carries a very similar meaning as "beyond human" but sounds a lot better. <S> What Brad Pitt did in the movie <S> Moneyball was extraordinary : he turned down an offer of $12.3 million to stay loyal to his team. <A> I am taking the meaning as what he has done is something too virtuous to be expected from any human , because according to me that is what fits here well. <S> You can say Godlike which means "beyond human". <S> What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was godlike , he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team. <S> Also extraordinary fits quite well, which means pleasant, exceptional and unexpected in general (i.e. from normal human being in this context) <S> What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was extraordinary , he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team. <A> Altruist may be a good choice. <S> Dictionary.com defines <S> altruist as following: <S> altruist — a person unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others (opposed to egoist ). <S> altruism — 1. <S> the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others; 2. <S> the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others; <A> I think the following three words are the best in the following order Extraordinary http://thesaurus.com/browse/extraordinary <S> Stunning - http://thesaurus.com/browse/stunning <S> Incredible http://thesaurus.com/browse/incredible Check by replacing these words in your sentence.
| "Extraordinary" makes a lot of sense here, as what is human is "ordinary," so "extraordinary" means "beyond human." So, What Brad Pitt did in the movie Money Ball was altruistic , he turned down an offer of 12.3 million to stay loyal to his team.
|
What is the difference between can and could in 'Can/could you please explain this to me?' Can you please explain this to me? Could you please explain this to me? I am unable to figure out which to use which situation. I did google, and some posts say they are both the same, even if the second one is more formal. Other posts say could is the past tense of can , but in the above example, I don't think could is used as past tense of can . What is correct way to use these words? <Q> The quick answer: <S> In most contexts, these two words are effectively synonyms, especially when discussing possibility, e.g. "(Can/Could) you [perform some action]?". <S> Longer answer: <S> There is a somewhat subtle difference in these two phrases that becomes a lot less subtle in different contexts. <S> Let's take the words one at a time: <S> Can deals with actual, literal ability to perform an action. <S> When you ask if someone can explain something, you are literally asking whether they are capable of explaining it. <S> Edit: <S> It is important to note that, as @J.R. has pointed out, this is by no means the only use (or even the most common use) of the word <S> can or the phrase <S> can you ... . <S> This construction is often abused to mean effectively the same thing as could you... , i.e. would you be willing to... , etc. <S> It is definitely a subtle difference, but basically, when you discuss possibility , you generally are aware of their ability to do it but are tentative about their willingness or availability to perform the action. <S> This is by no means an exact definition. <S> It is also worth noting that the word could is actually the past tense of can . <S> In English, using the past tense form of a word in this way is often meant to indicate tentativeness. <S> I wanted to talk with you. <S> I wondered if you would be available this afternoon. <S> I thought it might a good idea. <A> In OP's context, the only difference is that could/would you [do something]? <S> is slightly more polite and/or "deferential" than <S> can/will you [do it]? <S> The reason for this is simply <S> could/would (and might ) are verb forms more strongly associated with hypothetical scenarios . <S> So using them places more "distance" between the speaker and whatever he's asking for. <S> There's more on the issue in this question on ELU, and if you're prepared to read a bit more, have a look at this excellent answer to a closely-related question. <S> Re OP's point about <S> could being a "past tense", I'd say that from some perspectives English doesn't really have a "past tense" anyway. <S> What it has, particularly with modal verbs like <S> Thus if I say "I could do it yesterday, and I can still do it today" , could references past time (before the present) and can references the present. <S> But if I say <S> "But I couldn't do it again without help" , <S> could [not] references either a future time (after the present), or a hypothetical time ("away" from the present), depending on how you want to look at it. <A> Could can be more tentative, and may sometimes be more polite. <S> However, the meaning depends on the context, the relationship between the participants in the conversation, and the speaker’s intonation. <A> Because could is a form of can , the sensible differences between those requests come from tense/mood. <S> Can inquires about the present, definite future, or general ability/possibility: <S> Can you explain it (now)? <S> Can you explain it (later, if I come to your office)? <S> Can you explain it (under any set of circumstances)? <S> Could indicates the subjunctive: <S> Could you explain it to me (if I were to specify the question)? <S> Could you explain it to me <S> (we were to find twenty minutes to talk)? <S> Could you explain it to me (if you weren't doing something else right now)? <S> If we mean to use can/could politely we're using them in pointed contrast to literal meaning: we're politely interested in convenience, preference, etc., and for that reason we do not ask about those things, and allow the conceit of ability to determine the outcome. <S> And also asking after ability allows someone to issue a more definite "no" than asking after preference, convenience, whch is important.
| can, may, must, shall, will is verb forms that often refer to the past, but can also refer to anything that's not here, now, present . Could deals with the possibility of performing an action.
|
English phonology for 'look' . . . when we look at . . . [wən-wi- luk -ət] [audio source] The pronunciation in the audio for [luk] seems to be heard [lək]. If I hear right, does [l] pull the [u] towards schwa sound , and so [u] assimilate into [ə]? <Q> In this case I believe what we're hearing is a dialect. <S> It's a very brief excerpt, but I'm pretty sure it's Irish. <S> I once had to perform a part in the Dublin dialect (although it was almost forty years ago!) <S> and I remember that pronunciation; and Wikipedia ( Hiberno_English ) says: In some varieties, speakers make no distinction between the [ʌ] in putt and the [ʊ] in put, pronouncing both as the latter. <S> Bertz (1975) found this merger in working-class Dublin speech, and a fluctuation between merger and distinction in General Dublin English (quoted in Wells 1982). <S> Nevertheless, even for those Irish people who, say, have a different vowel sound in put and cut, pairs such as putt and put, <S> look and luck may be pronounced identically. <S> [My emphasis] <S> This is of course the opposite shift from that we're hearing; but this is an educated speaker, and it may represent a hypercorrection. <A> The normal way of pronouncing look would be /lʊk/. <S> Note however that with some regional accents, this can change; for example, some UK accents expand the vowel to produce something closer to /lu: <S> k/. <S> I'm not sure I've ever heard someone pronounce <S> look as /lək/, though. <S> I think in your audio example, it's still actually /lʊk/; it's just that the speaker is speaking quite quickly, making it a bit hard to make out. <A> To me, it sounds rather [lɔk] than [lʌk]. <S> Look cognates to a Proto-Germanic root, *lōkōnan, which is pronounced [ˈlɔː.kɔː.nɑ̃]. <S> So there's no surprise speakers of different dialects of English pronounce look with [ɔ]. <S> Also, shwa [ə] is quite popular as well. <S> Listen how it is pronounced in The Beatles' " <S> While My Guitar Gently Weeps" , for example.
| I read the sound on this as [lʌk], or at least closer to [lʌk] than [lʊk].
|
What is the feminine equivalent of "guy"? Is there a word that is the feminine equivalent of guy ? I thought of gal , but I think it is used for a girl, or a young woman. I am looking for a word that can be used to generally mean woman , and similar to guy . <Q> According to the writers of this musical , it’s gal . <S> In more recent times, however, guy seems to have become unisex. <A> In some cases "gal" can be used, and in some cases "girl" can be used. <S> (for example "Girls night out" is more or less equivalent to "guys night out".) <S> But although "girl" is sometimes used to refer to women of any age, it at least suggests a child or a young woman, and many women now consider it a mild put-down when used of an adult women, implying that women are never really mature. <S> Once it was common to refer to a female workforce as "the office girls", but that would be taken as quite negative by many now. <S> Some people use "guys" to mean "people", but I think that sounds odd, and depending on the context, perhaps wrong. <S> There are many slang terms for "woman" but most of them have similar problems to "girl" or worse ones. <S> It very much depends on the specific audience. <S> "Lady" or "ladies" almost always works, but is a bit more formal than "Guy" or "Guys". <A> Guys seems to have a kind of casual almost affectionate ring that evokes a specifically male personna. <S> The unisex usage seems a bit contrived, tag-along. <S> Guy probably arose among men from sustained, all-male work, military, or school experience. <S> Not having had many of those kinds of experiences women have evolved no generally informal terms for themselves. <S> Maybe that will change.
| There really isn't a female equivalent for "guy" in many usages.
|
What do you call that talk which someone gives to you to point out mistakes? What do you call the kind of advice given by someone, such as a sympathetic manager or your friend, who wishes to point out your mistakes and advise you about how to improve in the future? I am looking for a word, or expression similar to "pep talk," but which more specifically means "to encourage and motivate" in the above context. For example, in a coach-athlete context, or any other kind of context where the advice given is (or, sought, should be) brutally honest. <Q> I think the phrase heart-to-heart talk (conversation, discussion etc) is the phrase you're looking for. <S> From thefreedictionary.com : adj: (esp of a conversation or discussion) concerned with personal problems or intimate feelings <S> The phrase can be used as either a noun or an adjective; that is, you can have a heart-to-heart conversation, or you can simply have a heart-to-heart. <S> After the meeting, I pulled Bob aside for a quick heart-to-heart. <S> Warning: heart-to-heart can infer an romantic, intimate conversation as well as the pep talk meaning, so make sure the context is understood. <S> With editing thanks to J.R. <A> I think the phrase constructive criticism would fit. <S> It is defined as follows: <S> Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. <S> In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is often a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. <A> I think heart-to-heart could work in some contexts, but in many others it would be much too soft, or gentle, to impart the "tough love* meaning OP is seeking--perhaps occasionally bleeding into the romantic, or at least too-tender, connotation mcalex warned against. <S> I called Bob out on what he'd done, but encouraged him to improve , I cleaned Bob's clock, but encouraged him to grow , I told Bob to pull up his socks , I gave Bob a/his comeuppance, and urged him to improve , <S> I told Bob to get his shit together , among several other alternate expressions, hit closer to the meaning OP is seeking. <A> A "chewing out" or an "ass-chewing" is an abrasive commentary about someone's mistakes. <S> It is usually given by a superior (such as a father, coach, military officer or NCO, or boss) to a subordinate (such as a son, athlete, junior officer or enlisted man, or employee). <S> This phrase is normally used for conversations between men; it is normal for the conversation to involve cussing and profanity. <S> There are three typical scenarios in which such a conversation takes place: <S> In a private room, with just the reprimander and reprimandee present. <S> In the presence of a group of people, who are all being chewed out for their error(s). <S> In the presence of a group of people, who are all of approximately equal rank to the reprimandee, and all of whom are of much lower status than the reprimander. <S> (For example, a group of boot-camp trainees, one of whom is being chewed out by the drill sargeant.) <S> Any other scenario is likely to result in a major "loss of face" for the reprimandee. <S> (The third scenario also results in a "loss of face", but this is intentional. <S> Boot camp is designed to diminish the individualism of the trainees, and replace it with pride in having survived boot camp and loyalty to one's fellow soldiers.) <A> You could call it "coaching". <S> That implies wanting to help you improve.
| Another word for honest feedback is "critique", though that doesn't have the same positive connotation as coaching.
|
When making a presentation, do I use "slides" or "foils"? Talks are often supported by presentations via a projector (with a presentation program such as Powerpoint).During the talk, there is often a sentence like "next slide/foil/screen please" or "on this slide/foil you see [...]". In the past there were two techniques: output on transparency/foils and presentation via an overhead projector output on slides (Reversal film) and presentation via a slide projector In my experience, most presenters use slide in their talks, but some use foil . LaTeX-based presentation tools use also slide and foil . I have the impression that British speakers prefer foil , and American ones prefer slides . Is there any rule or is it an individual preference? Or should I use screen like Next screen please ? <Q> and Acetates (named after the clear plastic used in the overhead sheets). <S> British English speakers so far as I'm aware don't use the word foils in this context. <S> So whilst it might be worth being <S> aware that some speakers might use the word <S> foils meaning slides , <S> as a learner you'd be well advised to prefer the more standard term slides . <S> In this context, slides can always be used in place of foils without loss of meaning, and will be clearer to a wider section of your audience. <A> Foils was a very common term for overhead transparencies some 25 years ago in the States, at least in the academic computing world. <S> Can’t say I’ve heard it for a while, though that doesn’t mean it’s never used any more. <S> If push came to shove, I’d say it might have something of an old-fashioned smell to it, not quite so old-fashioned as the smell of freshly mimeographed copies with their weird purple copies, but something of that order. <A> "Slide" is the current standard term in the USA. <S> For reference, go to Help in PowerPoint and search for "slide" and then for "foil". <S> There are lots of hits for the former, and no hits for the latter. <S> However, in many companies, the term "foil" is still used, even though the actual slide is 100% digital and never printed on any form of film. <S> Intel (where I work) is an example. <S> It seems as though the term "foil" is at least as common as "slide" at Intel. <S> I believe the term "foil" dates from at least 40 years ago, when overhead projectors were first introduced, and the transparencies used were a very thin sheet of film (cellulose acetate) held in a cardboard frame to keep them manageable.
| In British English, I've never heard the term foils , although I have heard the term Overheads (meaning transparent sheets for showing on an overhead projector )
|
Can 'domestic animal' be used instead of 'livestock'? Is it correct to use domestic animal instead of livestock (cattle)? livestock animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens domestic animal an animal that is not wild and is kept as a pet or to produce food Source: Cambridge Dictionary Could they really have the same meanings? <Q> The difference between domestic animals and livestock , and whether any difference exists, depends on context. <S> In common usage, livestock refers to specific animals bred in an agricultural setting for food, extraction, or labor. <S> Some consider poultry to be included under livestock ; others would treat them as separate. <S> Among laymen in Europe and North America, livestock has a strong association with large mammals, chiefly cattle, horses, sheep, goats, hogs, and mules and donkeys. <S> Domestic animal , perhaps due to association with household-related terms like domestic appliance or domestic worker , now strongly implies a housepet, especially dogs and cats. <S> There is additionally the term domesticated animal , indicating animals which have been bred in human company for so long that they are dependent on humans for survival. <S> But not all domesticated animals are domestic (e.g. a dairy cow), and not all domestic animals are domesticated (e.g. a pet snake). <S> For official purposes, however, the two may be interchangeable: animals which are raised as agricultural or industrial assets. <S> According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, The terms "livestock" and "poultry" are used in a very broad sense, covering all domestic animals irrespective of their age and location or the purpose of their breeding. <S> Non-domestic animals are excluded from the terms unless they are kept or raised in captivity, in or outside agricultural holdings, including holdings without land. <S> Livestock or domestic (not necessarily domesticated) <S> animals might include farmed fish, bees, silkworms, or alligators in different parts of the world. <S> Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit noted in United States v. Park, 536 F.3d 1058 <S> (9th Cir. <S> 2008) <S> that even dogs could qualify as livestock under U.S. law: <S> Ron and Mary Park own and operate a dog kennel, Wild River Kennels, on property along the Clearwater River in Idaho. <S> Their property is subject to a scenic easement that was granted to the United States, which prohibits commercial activity but permits livestock farming. <S> In this appeal, we are asked to determine the unusual question whether dogs are “livestock.” <S> Despite a gut inclination that the answer might be “no,” resolution of the issue is not so clear, thus precluding summary judgment at this stage of the proceeding. <S> As it turns out, the term “livestock” is ambiguous at best and much broader than the traditional categories of horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs. <A> No, not really. <S> Native English speakers would assume that a domestic animal means something closer to a pet, such as a dog or a cat, but that livestock refers more to animals reared on a farm, such as a cow, sheep or pigs. <S> Obviously there's some overlap in some circumstances, <S> for example a pig farmer's daughter might have a baby pig as a pet, but in common parlance you should avoid mixing the two. <A> "Domestic animals" is a term that can have two meanings; one is very broad, the other is more narrow. <S> Sometimes, "domestic animals" is used as a term that roughly equates to "pets." <S> Other times, "domestic animals" has a broader definition, and refers to any animals that rely on humans for food and shelter, to include livestock and cattle. <S> Here is a definition from Dictionary.com <S> that leans toward the first meaning: domestic animal ( n. ) <S> any of various animals that have been tamed and made fit for a human environment <S> Here is a statute from the United States (the state of Florida, specifically) <S> that indicates a broader use of the word, referring specifically to horses, cows, goats, sheep, and pigs: <S> " Domestic animal shall include any equine or bovine animal, goat, sheep, swine, dog, cat, poultry, or other domesticated beast or bird." <S> A Canadian law website provides a definition that seems to refer to pets: Domestic Animal <S> A pet; dogs, cats or other tame animals or birds and which serve some purpose for its owner or others. <S> Yet Wikipedia's list seems much more inclusive. <A> As a technical term, "domestic animal" means the same thing as "domesticated animal". <S> Both terms refer to animals that have undergone domestication . <S> This includes livestock, but it's a broader category including non-livestock such as domestic cats. <S> Because it's a broader category, it's not appropriate to use the two as synonyms. <S> That said, the term has another meaning, as well. <S> People often use "domestic animal" in a more narrow sense, meaning "pets such as cats or dogs". <S> Why? <S> I have two theories, but I don't know if either is correct: <S> If you want to refer to livestock, "livestock" is the most natural word. <S> If you say "domestic animal", it's natural to assume you <S> don't intend to refer to livestock, because if you did, you'd have said "livestock" instead. <S> "Domestic" can mean "in or around the home". <S> Perhaps "domestic animal" has been reinterpreted to mean an animal that you'd have inside the home--in other words, a pet such as a cat or dog. <S> This narrower definition doesn't change the answer to your question, though. <S> "Livestock" isn't the same as the broad or the narrow definition. <S> The answer is still no . <S> Livestock is a different term. <S> As an aside, if you want to communicate the technical sense of "domestic animal", you can say "domesticated animal" instead. <S> Otherwise, I think people might assume you mean the narrower sense. <A> Not quite when looking from a more technical aspect, even though they might overlap in some contexts (e.g. a farm, or someone can have a pet cow/horse/whatever). <S> From Wikipedia : ‘Livestock’ are defined, in part, by their end purpose as the production of food, fiber and/or labor.
| Livestock are animals raised specifically for the production of food (and other byproducts, such as manure used as a fertilizer) or for doing work (e.g. horses), while domestic animals are mostly raised for companion.
|
Is there any term about morning laziness? As we all know, some people are lazy when they wake up in the morning. Is there any term in English expressing "laziness in mornings" , maybe like "hangover without alcohol" ? <Q> The term "morning person" can be used to describe someone who is not lazy in the morning. <S> "Not a morning person" refers to the opposite: being lazy in the morning. <S> There's also the term lark and night owl , referring to people who get up early and go to bed late respectively. <A> Although perhaps not a direct answer to the question, I'd just like to throw in the following phrase that specifically relates to feeling sluggish with perhaps a slight lazy or melancholy connotation, specifically relating to Mondays: <S> Don't talk to Jeff at the moment. <S> He's got a bad case of the Monday blues <S> With regards to being not being alert and at your best in the mornings, as Pubby suggests I'm not a morning person which is quite a common expression, meaning someone who isn't at their best in the Mornings - although as Barbara points out, that's not necessarily because of laziness, it might mean someone who just really doesn't enjoy mornings. <S> There's also a wonderful phrase to describe the opposite, i.e. someone who is always ready to go and enthusiastic in the mornings: <S> I love how our interns always arrive at work bright eyed and bushy <S> tailed <S> meaning that the interns are always alert and enthusiastic when they arrive at work. <A> The term slugabed denotes <S> “One who indulges in lying late in bed; a sluggard ”. <A> It's usually used in the past tense such as "I rolled out of the bed this morning" or "I was rolling out of the bed this morning", but can also be used in future tense for situations where someone knows it will be difficult to wake up or get going such as "I'm going to be rolling out of bed tomorrow morning because I need to wake up early to prepare for a presentation". <A> The term Sleep <S> Inertia describes reduced abilities immediately after waking up. <S> However this is a somewhat technical term that may not be very widely known.
| There's also the phrase "rolling out of bed in the morning" which specifically means that it was difficult to wake up and get out of bed, but is commonly used to describe any type of morning laziness or slow start to a morning.
|
How can I say that not noticing something was very difficult? How can say that something was very difficult not to be noticed? I was thinking of the opposite of "I could barely notice that." on the lines of "I could not not notice that." which doesn't seem correct (too much not in row). Is there a better way to say what I am trying to say? <Q> I would say that this something was glaring , blatant or flagrant . <A> Sometimes the word help is inserted to convey this thought: <S> I couldn't help but notice that ketchup on your chin. <S> The leading words can vary; one might say I can't help but notice , or he couldn't help but notice. <S> Cannot and could not are sometimes used as well. <S> You can find several instances of this phrase if you peruse this list . <S> An Ngram would suggest that this particular wording is relatively contemporary, at least in terms of its popularity: <A> There is an idiom that something obvious is as plain as the nose on your face. <S> It is defined as: to be very obvious -- <S> There's no doubt that he's interested in her. <S> It's as plain as the nose on your face. <S> * <A> You could say it was clearly visible or that it was right in front of you.
| Or "I couldn't help noticing that", as was suggested in a comment.
|
What are the differences between should, were, and if conditional clauses? Mr. Brocklehurst, I believe I intimated in the letter which I wrote to you three weeks ago, that this little girl has not quite the character and disposition I could wish: should you admit her into Lowood school, I should be glad if the superintendent and teachers were requested to keep a strict eye on her, and, above all, to guard against her worst fault, a tendency to deceit. (Jane Eyre) I guess should can be replaced by were , or if . What are the semantic differences between all three of them? <Q> It’s a matter of degrees of formality. <S> ‘Should you admit her . . .’, . <S> ‘Were you to admit her . . .’ <S> and ‘If you were to admit her . <S> . . .’ are all particularly formal. <S> The informal, and more usual, construction would be ‘If you admitted her . . .’ <S> The sentence is basically an instance of what is sometimes taught to foreign learners of English as the Second Conditional. <S> The differences in style can perhaps be better appreciated by stepping away from this example from nineteenth century fiction, and looking at a sentence that might occur in contemporary English. <S> Suppose that I have a friend who wants to catch a train. <S> I know that he could if he hurried, but I also know that he won’t, because he’s unfit. <S> In those circumstances, I would normally say If you ran, you’d catch the train. <S> The three formal versions, equivalent to Charlotte Brontë’s sentence and the two alternatives I have proposed, are: <S> Should you run you’d catch the train. <S> Were you to run, you’d catch the train. <S> If you were to run, you’d catch the train. <S> You will see that the degree of formality shown in these constructions would be quite inappropriate in the situation. <A> In the Jayne Eyre sentence, " should you admit her into Lowood school, I should be glad if" can be rewritten as "{ if you / were you to } accept her as a student in your school <S> , I will be happy if..." <S> Whether and if are usually interchangeable, as in. <S> e.g., "I don't know { whether / if } she's sick or well". <S> e.g., "{ Should / If } you decide to accept our offer, please...". <S> " Were you to decide to accept our offer, please..." is also possible, but it doesn't seem felicitous style to me. <S> You can check the semantic differences in a dictionary. <S> In the examples I've given you, the differences are stylistic, not semantic. <S> And each has different usage rules. <A> Essentially, in this context there is real no semantic difference. <S> There is a syntactic difference in the follow-on words in the sentence that relate to 'should', if it is changed - to illustrate: <S> should you admit her into Lowood school, I should be glad if the superintendent and teachers were requested to keep a strict eye on her ... <S> were <S> you to admit her into Lowood school <S> , I would be glad if the superintendent and teachers were requested to keep a strict eye on her ... <S> if you admit her into Lowood school, I will be glad if the superintendent and teachers are requested to keep a strict eye on her ... <S> Even though this suggests that the should and were versions are past tense, in the context, they are all future tense, but Ms Brontë is using a future event as though it had already happened
| Should and if are usually interchangeable, as in. In other contexts, should can carry a connotation of obligation, but that isn't at issue here.
|
How to memorize 5500 English words within the shortest time? I am considering to appear for GRE . For this purpose, I have bought a vocabulary book containing 5500 words. It must be mentioned that I work 12 hours per day and thus I have limited free time. My questions are: What major factors apply rapid study? Is learning by vocabulary an effective technique to prepare specifically for GRE test? If so, how many days would be a realistic target? If not, what are learning techniques which enable me well prepared within the shortest possible period of time? <Q> 5500 words?! <S> Most GRE books only emphasize the most common 350 to 1500 words, 5500 seem to be slightly excessive. <S> If you don't have at least 3 months to read that book (still about 60 a day), shift to some other that feature less but more selected GRE vocabularies. <S> Focus on learning word roots. <S> Stay away from a long list of words in alphabetical order, instead, go for ones that display the meaning as well as the word roots (prefixes and suffixes) of the vocabularies. <S> For example, bene is a prefix that means "good" <S> and it forms words like bene /fit, bene /fiter, bene /ficial, bene /faction, bene /factor or bene /factress, bene /dict (blessed), bene /diction, bene /fice, and bene /volent, etc. <S> That way, you can absorb many more words in one go. <S> Use flash cards. <S> Thousands of words are hard to review, you can either buy the ready-to-use GRE flash cards, or make your own. <S> Keep the pile with you and review whenever and wherever possible. <S> Take a mock exam. <S> If you have not researched what taking GRE is like, I'd recommend trying a mock exam just to familiarize with the environment. <S> You can check the GRE site to see if they have one available. <S> Major tutoring companies may also be able to provide a few if you enroll in their prep courses. <S> I have never gone to those commercial prep school, but if you're time-pressed having some professional help may not be a bad thing. <A> Rather than memorizing an arbitrary list of words, I strongly recommend that you learn each word individually. <S> I’m a visual learner, so the way I learn is by associating words with pictures. <S> For complicated words, I create short stories. <S> Give it a try. <S> It has worked for me. <A> Play a small game with some of your friend or family members. <S> Make 3 piles of card where each card has 1-2 words on it with some points. <S> Now pull one card from each pile. <S> And make a story over these words. <S> Whoever successfully makes a story will get points. <S> *Increase the number of cards from 3 to up to 7 later. <A> Practice is the single thing teachers agree on to help you learn a language.
| Practice talking to native speakers, practice reading English books, and any time you come across a word you don't understand, look out up in a good dictionary. It is impossible to predict how fast you will learn, as everyone is different.
|
Are the meanings of "free" and "FREE" the same in "Totally FREE service"? Capitalization of the word FREE is widespread in the Internet. image courtesy of According to my understanding of netiquette , capitalization stands for SHOUTING . There are other uses of capitalization, like in legal documents or for book titles, but I think they aren't very relevant. OTOH, this very word is capitalized much more often than others. I can't recall other words were capitalized, even in similar contexts, like this: Our service is your BEST friend; Our dictionary is the LARGEST in the world; Subscribe to receive our INTERESTING news feed; Being in I.T., I often receive requests to capitalize free across an entire Web site I'm responsible for. There's also a programmer's anecdote that there's a new grammar rule requiring the word FREE to be always capitalized. Surprisingly, dictionaries don't cover this aspect. In the context of Internet usage, Are the meanings of free and FREE the same? If so, is it grammatical to capitalize FREE ? <Q> In advertising, capitalization is often used for emphasis, to attract people's attention (which is the primary goal of advertising). <S> It would not be unreasonable to interpret it as shouting, since advertisers frequently shout things that make whatever they are promoting sound better. <S> On television and radio, they often shout the entire ad (which I find extremely annoying) to get your attention. <S> In formal writing, capitalization should not be used this way. <S> However, advertisers seldom care about formal correctness in their ads. <S> In fact, it is quite common for them to capitalize and/or misspell words to attract attention. <A> it's not a matter of grammar, but of style. <S> capitalized words stand out because of CONTRAST. <S> if i decided to write in all-lowercase, even though it wouldn't be stylistically appropriate for a formal paper, it still wouldn't be ungrammatical . <S> arguably, some sentences become ungrammatical with incorrect capitalization. <S> this is usually because of word pairs distinguished by capitalization , such as march and March. <S> even in these cases, though, confusion is unlikely. <S> if i write the date march 23, 1981, it's unlikely that any readers will think i meant the verb "to march". <S> even though it's not ungrammatical, this sort of emphasis may be considered poor style. <S> if you start EMPHASIZING lots of WORDS with CAPITALIZATION, it becomes harder to read. <S> many people consider this sort of emphasis annoying, especially if you do it a lot, so tread lightly. <S> (this is true for any sort of emphasis, including putting phrase after phrase in italics or boldface; if you try to make everything stand out, nothing does. <S> contrast is key.) <A> Although I suppose it is technically wrong to capitalize the word free in this sense, it is common practice in informal writing. <S> Although technically invalid, there is an increasing trend towards capitalization of words that are to be emphasised or "shouted", for example, the following is ungrammatical with its use of capitals, but uses artistic licence to give a better impression of the speaker's tonality: <S> Where did I put my car keys? <S> Are they in here? <S> No? <S> Ok maybe here? <S> No? <S> Oh my goodness I need my keys. <S> In here? <S> No. <S> Oh My God. <S> Where are my keys? <S> On the shelf? <S> No. <S> In the draws? <S> No. <S> On the fridge? <S> Seriously. <S> OH MY GOD. <S> Where are my FREAKING keys!? <S> Oh, here they are. <S> Thank GOD. <S> In this case we can see a lot of abuse of grammar going on. <S> In particular, excessive capitalisation of Oh My God suggests an increasing frustration in the speaker's voice. <S> Later in the sentence this is repeated again, but with more emphasis: <S> OH <S> MY GOD <S> This means the same as "Oh my god", but in this case, with the implication that the speaker is now quite loud (and presumably angry). <S> Later in the sentence, the word FREAKING is capitalized as an emphasiser to show that the speaker is stressing that word, and there's also the completely ungrammatical !? <S> mark giving additional emphasis and force to the question. <S> Note that the final GOD is emphatic as a sigh of relief, rather than stress. <S> Be aware that generally you should avoid this style of writing in business and formal settings. <S> You'll tend to find this style of emphasis more common on the Internet, where forums and instant messaging tend to be quite informal and "chatty". <S> You'll also see it in adverts, where the intention of the author is to grab your attention rather than to be grammatical, and in non-fiction writing as emphasis of spoken text.
| What you are seeing is an emphasis being placed on the word "free" in order to draw your attention to it.
|
How do you address a policeman on duty? How do you address a policeman while he is on duty (e.g., when you are asked to stop at a checkpoint)? The word "policeman" itself seems quite unusual to me, and some sources suggest "officer". Is that correct? Is there any difference in use if the policeman is a woman: should you use a different word? Also, is "cop" a wrong word to use in this context (i.e., potentially offensive or derogatory)? <Q> The official term is police officer , so officer seems to be the best term, neutral and respectful. <S> It also seems valid regardless of their rank, gender, etc. <S> Excuse me officer , may I ask why my car was stopped? <S> Excuse me officer , I just wanted to tell you that you have a headlight out. <S> Answers to <S> this question at ELU also suggest sir and ma'am (not madam , thanks @tchrist) as good alternative. <S> Also, UK English has another word, constable , which is a bit too official, but quite acceptable. <S> And don't try slang words! <S> In some countries, it may lead you straight to jail. <S> P.S. <S> In some countries, a police officer holds a highly respected position, and rank does matter. <S> So if you are traveling and you can read insignia of ranks <S> and you know what you are doing, you may call them by rank to show your highest respect: <S> Excuse me lieutenant , ... <A> Definitely go with officer , for example in the sentence: <S> Excuse me officer , could you please point me in the direction of the nearest police station? <S> You can also use the term "police" when referring to non-specific officers in the general sense, for example: <S> Stop! <S> Help! <S> Police ! <S> That man stole my wallet! <S> There are a great many different slang words for the police, but you should avoid most of them as most of them are offensive and may get you into trouble. <S> Note that police officers are people too, so <S> if you forget you can simply ask your question as you would to any other member of the public: <S> Excuse me , I was wondering if you could help me unlock my bicycle; the lock is stuck. <A> In some countries it's also perfectly alright to use the officer's rank (such as Sergeant or Constable ), "police officer" is neutral. <S> Whilst the terms <S> "police man" and "police woman" are technically correct, it is safer to just use the neutral term. <S> You may also hear <S> other (slang) terms being used to reference members of the police force, but most of these can be considered derogatory and should generally be avoided. <S> For example: Cop - Whilst this term is commonly used (and is even the title of an American TV show), it should generally be avoided to ensure that you don't cause offense. <S> Pig <S> - Completely derogatory and should not be used. <S> Fuzz <S> - As above. <S> Bobby - Used in British English, and the British Police don't seem to mind - but you should avoid the term if you're not a native speaker and not comfortable in its appropriate usage. <A> "Cop" is not derogatory, but it is also not a title. <S> So "Officer, there are a lot of cops here, <S> " NOT "Cop, there are a lot of officers here. <S> " <S> If people introduce themselves with a title, like detective, lieutenant, or sergeant, use that. <S> If they do not provide a title or you didn't catch it, "officer" is always a good fallback. <S> It is probably preferable to sir or ma'am and can be used for both genders.
| The term "police officer" is the best term to use as it is gender-neutral and is not considered derogatory.
|
Is there any expression/word for "almost inaccessible"? Inaccessible means, with respect to a place -"unable to be reached". But I want a word or expression that signifies that a place is "almost inaccessible but can be reached ultimately with great effort"—like the North Pole or the hill area around Mount Everest. It is not like they can't be accessed at all; they can only be accessed with great difficulty. So what can I say these places are? <Q> If you had asked for a word for the journey itself, rather than an adjective to describe such destinations, I would have suggested expedition , which is often used in historical contexts to describe arduous treks to hard-to-reach locations such as the Earth's poles , its highest mountains , or its deepest ocean floors . <S> I checked a couple of reverse dictionaries to see if I could find a word that would fit your request, but came up empty-handed. <S> Depending on the context of your description of such places, I might suggest saying something along these lines: it requires an expedition to reach <S> you'd need provisions to reach it <S> that's no day trip <S> you don't just walk there – you need a supply line <A> I would go with "near inaccessible". <S> But "almost inaccessible" is clean too. <S> As in To get to the near inaccessible Mount Doom we trekked for weeks while facing countless dangers. <A> There aren't any good, simple words that convey this meaning exactly to my knowledge, but there are some similar ones: <S> Inhospitable is a similar word, meaning that the place is difficult to live at. <S> For example: Antarctica is the most inhospitable continent on Earth <S> You might want to add emphasisers to make your sentence more clear that the place is really inhospitable, for example: We had to delay sending supplies to the Antarctica Scientific Outpost because after the weather declined because the entire place became practically inaccessible from the ground. <A> There are a couple of words I can think of for specific scenarios - for example a "redoubtable fortress" is one that is awe-inspiring and difficult or near-impossible to break through. <S> "Forbidding" can also be used idiomatically to mean "making an approach difficult or impossible", as in "the forbidding terrain near the North Pole": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forbidding
| Inaccessible is perhaps the most obvious one, meaning that the place is difficult to reach.
|
Can "sir" be used together with titles? In Italian, signore or signor (equivalent to Mr. or sir , depending on the context) can be used together with other titles, for example with dottore ("doctor"), or military ranks (e.g. capitano , "captain"). In particular with the military ranks, there is a difference between Signor Capitano and Capitano . When speaking with other soldiers, Signor Capitano would mean: My rank is lower than Captain I am speaking with somebody whose rank is higher than mine Can sir be used with other titles? What is the equivalent of Signor Capitano , said by someone who has a rank lower than Captain? To be clear, I am not using sir as title, but as word to respectfully address a man (which is the usage signore has in Italian). <Q> Colonel Blimp, sir, Company A is ready to proceed. <S> Professor Knights, sir, may I ask a question? <S> Professor Knights, may I ask a question, sir? <S> Sir in this sense does not necessarily imply subordination; in formal situations it may be used to one's peers to signify either respect or distance. <S> You are exactly right, sir; well said! <S> You, sir, are a liar and a blackguard. <S> Sir before a name or name-and-title, is always the title proper to a knight, unless the appellation is set off in apposition: <S> Sir, Professor Knights, might I ask a question? <A> This does not happen in the American military system. <S> However, in the Commonwealth, someone who is entitled to be addressed as Sir (or even Lord ) who holds a military rank seems formally to have the rank first <S> and then the Sir <S> before his name. <S> General Sir Peter Wall <S> Major Sir Michael Parker General Sir David Fraser Colonel Sir George Everest Major-General Sir Isaac Brock General Lord George Henry Lennox Major-General Sir Henry Havelock, <S> KCB Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Richard Fletcher <S> General Lord Robert Edward Henry Somerset GCB Colonel Sir William John Kent, CBE, TD, DL, JR Colonel Sir Archibald David Stirling, DSO, OBE General Sir Hugh Michael Rose KCB, CBE, DSO, QGM Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Ninian Edward Crichton-Stuart General Sir David Julian Richards, GCB, CBE, DSO, ADC Lieutenant-Colonel Lord George Augustus Frederick Paget Lieutenant General <S> The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae Lieutenant Colonel Sir Francis Edward Younghusband, KCSI, KCIE Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Cameron Maxwell Lamb, KBE, CMG, DSO <A> The main British authority on this kind of thing is Debrett’s . <S> They advise that armed forces and ambassadorial ranks should precede 'Sir' and give as examples His Excellency Sir John Brown, KCMG and Major Sir John Brown . <S> However, in the section on academic titles they comment: In social usage it is not uncommon to find crown honours combined with styles emanating from other sources, eg Professor Lord Johnston, although this is deprecated by purists.
| Sir as a respectful term of address is employed without the name, or after the name: Sir, yes, sir!
|
Expression to use for somebody very lucky In Italian, to mean that somebody is very lucky, we say nato con la camicia (literally, "born with the shirt"). Is there an expression I could use in English that is more colorful than very lucky ? <Q> There are a number of expressions for someone who seems to have all the luck; for example, we might say he has all the luck . <S> She lives as if under a magic spell that grants only good luck, or is looked with favor upon by God. <S> have been born under a lucky star , or other astrological phenomena. <S> be a lucky dog or lucky duck , informally. <S> This expression is used both to say someone has enjoyed a recent string of good luck, and to say s/he lives with good luck in general. <S> To tease enviously, one might say he's a lucky stiff , or in British English, a jammy bastard . <S> have nine lives. <S> Such a person has escape perilous, perhaps deadly situations on many occasions. <A> There is a phrase: born under a lucky star and also born with a silver spoon in his mouth although this connotes more of being born wealthy (which is a pretty lucky thing to have happened) than just being straight lucky. <A> In British English, there's a great term for this: <S> He came off his motorcycle going at 70mph and walked away? <S> That's awfully jammy <S> Dave won the lottery? <S> That jammy sod. <S> (In this case the offensiveness of the term "sod" is offset by the term "jammy", but be careful when using it). <S> The phrase jammy in this context comes from a brand of biscuits in the UK called Jammy Dodgers , hence someone who is able to dodge bad events or is very lucky can be referred to as jammy . <S> Generally the word jammy is applied as an adjective to an offensive noun, such as jammy bastard , jammy sod etc, but a less offensive (and less common) form is to use the original: <S> You woke up two hours late for your interview, caught the wrong bus, and were still there before the interviewer?
| A perpetually fortunate person might also lead a charmed life or blessed life . You jammy dodger .
|
What does "viewer discretion is advised" mean? Viewer discretion is advised. I've stumbled upon this phrase a few times (mainly at the beginning of video clips or movie trailers), but I'm still not quite sure what it really expresses. What is actually advised here? Oxford dictionary suggests that discretion is either "freedom to decide what should be done" or "the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offence or revealing confidential information" . <Q> It's a warning, letting the viewer know they may not want to watch the program; it may contain something they don't want to watch, such as violence or sexual content. <S> "Discretion" is simply choosing not to watch. <S> Taking it one step further, "discretion" may also refer to choosing what to allow someone else (such as your children) to watch. <A> "Viewer discretion advised" refers to "adult" content that is unsuitable for children, and for some adults as well. <A> The program contains something that may offend someone <S> (coarse language or humor, violence, sex, nudity, drug use or references, liberal ideas,...) <S> so don't say you weren't warned.
| It means that adults should make a conscious decision whether or not to watch it, and be VERY careful about lettng children see it.
|
Is "Get out" different from "Walk out"? Consider these expressions: The moment you walk out of the building, you will see various cabs parked outside. The moment you get out of the building, you will see various cabs parked outside. Is there any difference between these two expressions? How do "get out" and "walk out" differ in meaning? <Q> Basically, no , there is no difference in this case . <S> But you already knew that. <S> I would caution you, however, that there are many contexts in which there is a difference. <S> The phrase "get out", especially when used as an imperative (command), quite often implies a very harsh tone, anger, and even a threat. <S> However, because you are using it in a context that merely discusses the act hypothetically, it won't be taken as harsh. <S> Another caution: <S> this is a somewhat less common way to use "get out", and a less common way to say what the sentence is trying to say (at least in my experience). <S> It sounds somewhat out of place there. <S> A better phrasing would perhaps be one of the following: <S> The moment you leave the building... <S> The moment you exit <S> the building... <S> The moment you arrive outside (of the building)... <A> You can get out of a building by walking out, crawling out, running out, flying out, dancing out, rolling out, teleporting out, or in whatever way you please. <S> Walking out of a building is rather more specific. <A> As mentioned in previous answers, in the present instance there is little or no difference in meaning between “get out” and “walk out”, except that the latter is more specific about the method of transport. <S> Of course, there are many other contexts where the two phrases can't be interchanged, or where interchanging them would change the meaning. <S> Note that while both your examples are grammatically sound and fairly clear in meaning, neither is colloquial nor something I'd expect to hear from a native speaker. <S> Given a lead-in like “The moment you walk out of the building”, native speakers expect a statement of drastic consequences to follow. <S> For example: <S> “The moment you walk out of the building, that's it, we're through”. <S> If all you mean to say is that there's a cab-line right outside the building, use something like either of <S> When you leave the building, you'll see a taxi-line. <S> There's a line of cabs near the front door.
| The only real difference here is that "walk out" specifies method of travel (walking).
|
Difference between "this" and "that" I always use them reversibly since I'm not too sure about their differences. For instance, in an email I just wrote: solution 1 solution 2 Which one of those solutions do you prefer? I'm not too sure whether I should use these or those . In the above example I used those because it sounds cooler, maybe not the best way to choose... Also I read that that is used appointing what is far while this is for close things. But in my example are solutions far or close? <Q> My hometown had a shop where the owner made three kinds of donuts every morning: plain donuts, powdered sugar donuts, and cinnamon donuts. <S> He also had a sign above each tray of donuts; the signs read THEM, THESE, and THOSE. <S> During the day, customers would make requests, such as, "I'd like two cinnamon donuts, and a plain donut," and whoever was behind the counter would put those in a bag. <S> But if the shop owner happened to be behind the corner – mind you, this man was known for being a little eccentric – he would look at you as if he didn't understand, and say something like, "Look, we have Them, These, and Those – now what can I get for ya? <S> " whereby the customer would have to say, "I'll take one of Them, and two of Those." <S> I always marveled at the way, <S> no matter what combination of donuts you were ordering, you could still create a grammatically correct sentence using his names for the donuts, such as, "I'd like three of them, one of these, and two of those." <S> My point for relating this story is that sometimes these words (those words?) can be used interchangeably, with little or no change in meaning. <S> I'd say that, in the general case, these seems to imply closer proximity then those (as in, "These marbles [in my hand] look very pretty, but those marbles [behind the counter] don't look as nice.") <S> However, as the donut example illustrates, even this generality doesn't always hold true. <A> In writing, you should prefer “this” or “these” when you’re introducing some text. <S> This is some text: <S> Some text. <S> That is some text. <S> Think of <S> this as referring to the text ahead of you <S> (“What is this?”), while that refers to the text you have already passed (“What was that?”). <S> These are however just general rules, not absolutes. <A> "This" implies the speaker thinks of the object as proximate in time or space, "that" implies he thinks of it as distant in time or space. <S> If you point to something on the the table right in front of you, you say, "What is this? <S> " If you point to something across the room, you say, "What is that?" <S> "Why is this happening?" means something happening in the present. <S> "Why did that a happen?" <S> or "Why will that happen" mean something happened in the past and will happen in the future, respectively. <S> The grammar rules of @Jon Purdy relate space and time. <S> If you write, "This is an example," the object of the "this" is taken to be immediate and right now. <S> "If you write "that was an example," the object is taken to be not immediate and in the past (either literally if spoken or in the previous text if read.) <S> In your example If you put the sentence before the list use "these" <S> Which one of these solutions do you prefer?- <S> Solution 1- Solution 2 <S> If you put the sentence after the list use "those." <S> - Solution 1- Solution 2Which one of those solutions do you prefer? <S> It's hard to see the subtlety but it becomes clear if the separation between the element and it's object is longer. <S> - Solution 1- Solution 2ParagraphParagraphParagraphParagraphWhich of these solutions do you prefer? <S> The reader will look in the text after and immediately before before jumping to the top. <S> - Solution 1- Solution 2ParagraphParagraphParagraphParagraphWhich one of those solutions do you prefer? <S> The reader knows the refered to solutution are above/before and if the solutions at the top remain the only one's mentioned, will move his attention to these solution...see what I did there? <S> When you read, "move his attention to these solutions" were did your attention go? <S> A helpful typo, I meant to write "move his attention to those solutions," which puts your attention on the proper object.
| Back to your example: I think you could have used either these or those , and, much like at the donut counter, either word would work just fine. You can only use “that” or “those” when the item or items have already been mentioned.
|
Which phrase should I use to interrupt a person who is speaking? When instant-messaging with a friend of mine (born in the USA), I used to say wait to interrupt her because I didn't understand something she said, or because she was talking about something for which she had a misunderstanding. Every time I said that, she replied as if I said wait for me before moving away from my computer to do something, with the result that sometimes she would move away from her computer. This would not happen in a face-to-face communication, since she would notice I was not going anywhere, and there would not be a long delay between the moment I say wait , and when I say what I wanted to say; with instant-messaging, there can be a delay from the moment I write a message and when I complete the next one. Is there a better/preferable phrase I should use in these cases? In Italian, aspetta would be a common, informal phrase to use in these cases, but clearly literally translating it didn't have the expected result. <Q> I think wait or wait <S> a minute is okay, and would sound softer, more polite, if you followed either expression with please ; however, you also need to follow it up with an expression like <S> I didn't (quite) understand that, or <S> I didn't (quite) understand what you said; I didn't (quite) get that or <S> I didn't (quite) get what you said . <S> All of the preceding expressions could be preceded by <S> Excuse me? <S> and, in fact, when speaking to native English speakers, Excuse me <S> is often sufficient on its own to communicate your intended meaning. <A> My solution, especially if this is someone you talk to frequently, is to make-up an agreed-upon word to mean exactly what you want it to mean. <S> In this case, you can simply use aspetta . <S> A similar fun word: A favorite of mine is " tomawamaca " (toe' mah wah' mah ka) <S> which means: <S> "Would you please take the clothes out of the washer and put them into the dryer?" <S> * <S> Another one: <S> I have a friend who thinks and talks faster than I do. <S> But she'll also misunderstand something I say. <S> Like if I say "yes" sometimes she'll hear "no". <S> Now this is in real life and can cause some big problems! <S> So she'll start going down a path of pure misunderstanding which doesn't have any ground in reality due to the misunderstanding. <S> I made up a word "diley" (die' lee) <S> which means all of the following : <S> "Wait! <S> I'm sorry <S> but I think there's a miscommunication. <S> What you are saying now doesn't seem to be representative of what I said. <S> Let's make sure we are on the same page!". <S> To which, her response should be to STOP and say, "Ok, what? <S> " meaning, "Ok, what do you think is the misunderstanding?" <S> This works very well. <S> ;) <A> You can also say I'm sorry <S> but you('ve) lost me. <S> Its not so polite, though it does not indicate whether the speaker's communication is unclear, nor whether you are too slow to follow what the speaker is saying. <S> Basically you are asking the speaker to repeat or rephrase the most recent information, so you can try to understand it correctly.
| Alternate, more casual expressions--which should also be followed by the same kind of explanatory follow-up statement to make your intended meaning completely clear--are: hang on, hang on a second, hold on, or hold on a second .
|
What is the word for "practice/habit of giving false hope"? Like the title says, I want to know what the word/expression for "practice/habit of giving false hope" is. The context is, for example, the owner of a factory who doesn't want to pay his employees. So the sentence is like: The owner is a master of giving false hope to his employees when the discussion comes to increment of the salary. The highlighted part should be replaced by the expression. By the way, is "false hope" even an understandable phrase? <Q> As a phrase you could say He is leading them on (to lead 'someone' on) <S> Although this is often used to also describe when someone is flirting with someone else whilst having no intentions to make a relationship. <A> Is false hope an understandable phrase? <S> It sure is, and it's quite recognizable, too, with much thanks to <S> Paul Simon for that. <S> According to Wikipedia, it "refers to a hope based entirely around a fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome." <S> A related phrase – raising hopes – is used to when something makes people more hopeful about a situation. <S> When those hopes are unlikely to be realized, the phrase raising false hopes is sometimes used, as in: <S> Some clinics have already been accused of raising false hopes through false advertising or making false claims about success rates (from <S> the book Gene Technology and Social Acceptance by W.P. Von Wartburg and J. Liew) <S> but even raising hopes can be used by itself (without the word false ) when the context clearly indicates that the hopes are tenuous, if not misleading, as in this example: <S> Politicians are often accused of raising hopes , which they know full well cannot be brought to fruition (from a 1976 article in New Scientist ) <S> As for a single word to express giving false hopes, the verb tantalize comes pretty close, which Macmillan defines as: to make someone feel excited by showing or offering them something that they want, often with no intention of giving it to them <S> The word has an interesting origin , being derived from the Greek mythology character Tantalus, who was "punished in the afterlife by being made to stand in a river up to his chin, under branches laden with fruit, all of which withdrew from his reach whenever he tried to eat or drink." <S> As such, the notion of false hope is certainly embedded in the word. <S> The noun form is tantalizer , so, getting back to your original question, one could say: <S> although I think it might sound more natural to use the word as a verb: <S> The owner tantalizes his employees when discussing salary increases. <A> Some possible wordings are shown below. <S> The owner is a master of soft-soaping his employees when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of cajoling his employees when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of inveigling his employees when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of blandishing his employees when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of blandishment when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of sham when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of blarney when the discussion ... <S> The owner is a master of flattery when the discussion ... <S> The above are based on meanings like the following. <S> • <S> soft-soap , “To attempt to persuade by flattery or pleasing words” • cajole , “To persuade someone to do something which they are reluctant to do, often by flattery; to coax <S> ” • inveigle , “to convert, convince or win over with flattery or wiles <S> ” • blandish , “ <S> To persuade someone by using flattery; to cajole” or “To praise someone dishonestly; to flatter or butter up” • <S> sham , “Trickery, hoaxing” <S> • <S> blarney , “Persuasive flattery or kind speech. <S> The ability to tell a man to go to hell, in such a way as he will look forward to the trip” • flattery , “Excessive praise or approval, which is often insincere and sometimes contrived to win favour.” <A> There are several terms: deceive — <S> To cause to believe what is not true; mislead — <S> To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. <S> So the phrase would look like: <S> The owner is a master of deception when the discussion comes to increment of the salary.
| The owner is a tantalizer when the discussion comes to salary increases.
|
Is "ima" spoken or only written? How casual is it? I recently had a friend text me "ima go to [the local pub]. U in?" I understood it just fine as meaning "I'm going to", but being an old fogey, I'm not sure if this is just txtspk or if ima is something people actually say. Is this just a texting abbreviation? If people really say this, how common is it and where is it mostly used? For instance, can I say it at the office, like "Ima get the spec to you by Thursday." Or is it more casual than that? <Q> It's definitely informal, and I'd suggest not using it in your office example. <S> In fact, I wouldn't recommend using it at all, except to transcribe the word when someone says it. <S> Is it an abbreviation? <S> Yes. <S> It's usually short for "I'm going to", <S> though in the phrase "I'mma gonna <S> " I think it's a replacement for "I'm". <S> Usage and spelling vary considerably. <S> EDIT: <S> See comments; apparently some people consider it a standard contraction in spoken English, though I disagree. <S> Regardless, it's definitely non-standard to write it this way. <A> It is used all the time in informal spoken English. <S> I don't notice whether people say "I'm-a go," "I'm-unna go," "I'm gonna go," or "I'm going to go" when I am talking to them, but they all sound perfectly normal to me. <S> I know I probably use each of those frequently. <S> Of course, you can only use it when it is expressing future tense and not other uses of the words "going to," so, as an example, you can say, "I'm-a think about it," to mean, "I'm going to think about it," but you couldn't say "I'm-a the party" to mean "I'm going to the party." <S> And although I would never use it when texting, I know some people do all the time. <S> I really dislike "text-speak." <S> It would sound weird to me to hear "I'm-a gonna," though. <S> I would never use that <S> and I've only heard it when someone was mimicking a Southern or Italian accent. <A> I first heard Dixie Carter say "Ima" on "Designing Women", and sometimes it would be a bit longer, as "I'monna", which is more obviously shortened from from " <S> I'm gonna", which of course was shorted from "I'm going to. <S> " <S> I always say "I'm going to" and do not shorten it. <S> I've said it that way all my life and see no need to change. <S> Also, if you are speaking with someone who has ESL, it makes it easier for them to understand. <S> This construction is considered the progressive tense (using the verb "to be"). <S> It is even more common in Spanish as "Voy a..." in which case it is a form of the future tense, denoting a bit of uncertainty, especially in Latin America, accordining to my Spanish teacher from Guatemala.
| It's mainly a spoken form which belongs to some dialects, but not to standard English.
|
What is the meaning of "gate" in this context? I have found it in an article. Since it may be related to politics, instead of providing with an actual quote of context, let me re-phrase it with my own words: John Smith, a famous politician, has been caught on a certain kind of public offense. This person has committed similar offenses in the past. The article is titled, "A new Smith gate " . What is the meaning of gate here? <Q> According to my research just now (I do not pretend to have known all of these big words beforehand, but OP's question was so interesting that I did some googling), the linguistic term for this type of morphology (which means "the patterns of word formation in a particular language, including inflection, derivation, and composition") is full word suffix : "word types...formed on newly minted suffix-like formatives which are actually freely occurring full words". <S> Formative in this grammatical context means "a derivational affix, particularly one that determines the part of speech of the derived word." <S> (Source: Morphologie / Morphology. <S> 1. <S> Halbband edited by Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, p. 968 ) <S> As other responders have pointed out (without using such high-falutin' linguistic terminology), the suffix <S> -gate <S> has, since the Richard Nixon/Watergate scandal of the early 1970s, come to mean "official scandal" and there are an uncountable number of instances of such derivations: Travelgate, Monicagate, Filegate , etc. <A> Smithgate is an invented word, which recalls the Watergate scandal, the political scandal that involved U.S. President Nixon. <S> Watergate is the name of the building where the headquarters of the Democratic Party were at that time (and maybe they are still there). <S> In this case, Smithgate just means a scandal involving John Smith. <A> The word "gate" here is largely irrelevant. <S> The actual word "Smithgate" is derived from the famous "Watergate" scandal involving then-US President Richard Nixon. <S> It was called the "Watergate" scandal after the name of the office complex where the events transpired. <S> Read more here <S> So basically, "Watergate" is a placename, and "Smithgate" is a satirical reference as a way of showing the significance of the events involving John Smith.
| The use of "Smithgate" as you say, refers back to the scandal where he was involved with rape allegations.
|
"Watch the step" without stairs When travelling on trains in the USA, I have noticed a sign saying "watch the step" close to the exit. I thought it was referring to stairs, but nowhere close to the exit I have seen stairs. I also thought it would be referring to stairs I could find right outside the train, but outside the train I always walked on a pavement. What does step in "watch the step" mean, in that sign? <Q> It means to be careful of the step between the platform and the train itself. <S> It’s like the ubiquitous “mind the gap” of the London tube. <S> The platform and the train are seldom on exactly the same level, so you almost always have to step up or step down; think of it as a one-step staircase, perhaps. <S> But even if they are exactly level, there’s likely to be a plunging hole between them, which suffices to make it prudent to tell people to watch their step. <A> More often than not, it's written as "WATCH YOUR STEP", and step in this case refers to how somebody walks (see meanings 1 and 2 at Collins ), as opposed to physical stairs (as mentioned in meanings 12 and 16). <S> Even if the sign reads WATCH THE STEP, I still think the word step can allude to where you are putting your feet, as opposed to some kind of stairs. <A> As tchrist indicates, it's Mind the gap on UK underground/mainline trains. <S> Presumably by association, our signs usually stick with Mind the step for other contexts where there's a change in level but no gap. <S> But bearing in mind OP asks whether Watch the step can be used where there aren't any actual stairs, it's worth pointing out that... <S> [You'd better] watch your step! <S> ...is a very common metaphorical usage as a warning <S> Be careful! <S> , <S> in contexts that may well have nothing at all to do with physical movement ( <S> and that one is always your , never the ). <S> Note that it's very often used in contexts where the danger involves "clashing with authority" ("Watch your step with the new boss!") . <S> In the literal sense, " the step" can be a step up/down in level where you're walking, or it can be the same as " your step", where it means the act of placing one foot in front of the other to walk/climb. <S> The metaphorical sense alludes to that latter, obviously. <S> Take care with each small move you make .
| “Watch your step” doesn’t refer to a literal step, but rather tells you to watch where you are stepping.
|
What is an equivalent expression for "having the moon across" (Italian)? When somebody is nervous, or easily irritable, in Italian you would say avere la luna di traverso which Google Translate translates with "have the moon across." (It seems Google Translate gives the literal translation, rather than an equivalent expression.) I looked for any expression using moon , but I found is over the moon which has the opposite meaning of what I am trying to say, and moon used as verb, in phrases similar to "lying in bed eating candy, mooning around" for which I cannot say if it is said in a positive way, or a negative way. Another, similar expression used in Italian is avere un diavolo per capello , which Google Translate translates as "have a devil for hair." Is there an equivalent expression I could use in this case? <Q> As you specified in comments that the phrase refers to someone who is irritable at a given moment, not in general, I think what you're looking for is this: -Person <S> A does or says something that makes others feel he is being irritable and grumpy/rude. <S> -Person B: <S> "Looks like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning ." <S> The phrase seems to be similar in meaning to your original Italian expression. <S> The basic idea is that someone is acting uncharacteristically rude or grumpy, and others are surprised by and unhappy with this behavior. <A> You can use the words anxious, cranky, grumpy. <A> A coarse expression that conveys this sentiment is "to have a hair across one's ass. <S> " It describes someone who is in a generally irritable or "pissy" mood, and can be used both for someone who tends to have that kind of disposition as well as someone who is just having an angry day. <S> It doesn't have the connotation of nervousness though. <S> "Having one's panties in a knot" or "knickers in a twist" is similar, slightly less coarse, and also implies that the person is high-strung and possibly over-reacting to the situation. <S> None of these is suitable for polite company however. <A> Moonstruck (not the 'in love' kind) seems to have some of the sentiments you are trying to capture. <S> It's not as close as jittery or high-strung in definition, but closer metaphorically. <A> Try high-strung , edgy, restless, tense, agitated, antsy, distraught, frantic. <S> If you give some more context, I could suggest something more narrowly matching your request as these all have different connotations. <S> Definitely avoid using moon as a verb. <S> The most common usage of mooning someone means showing them your naked butt. <A> Synonyms for nervous : [be] jittery, [have] the jitters, [have] butterflies in [my] stomach, [be] uptight Synonyms for easily irritable : [be] moody, [be] uptight, [be] irritable, [be] grouchy, to have a short fuse, [be] cantankerous, [be] crabby . <S> There are probably many other synonyms. <A> The moon is sometimes associated with making people "crazy." <S> (Hence the references to a "lunatic" or a "looney" person.) <S> The Italian phrase roughly translates into: " <S> The moon has a hold of him. <S> " <S> He's acting rather "erratically." <S> An equivalent (colloquial) <S> English expression might be: "He's got ants in his pants."
| The only term I can think of that means both nervous and easily irritable is uptight .
|
May I use "when" with a time expression like "10 minutes back"? 10 minutes back when I checked the score, X team was losing. Is this expression correct? Use of the word 'when' sounds odd to me. What would the right construct be? <Q> It’s just like this: When I looked outside ten minutes ago, it was still snowing heavily. <S> It was still snowing heavily when I looked outside ten minutes ago. <A> Yes, when is perfectly fine in that sentence. <S> You are saying that, in the moment you checked the score, it was unfavorable for that team. <S> Five minutes earlier, the score could have been different, but you don't know it; the score could have changed five minutes after you checked, but you don't know it. <S> I would rather rephrase the sentence as: 10 minutes ago, when I checked the score, X team was losing. <S> When I checked the score, 10 minutes ago, X team was losing. <A> This is correct. <S> The phrase with when is a distinct modifier and can be moved or omitted; and when you write it, it might be set off with a pair of commas : 10 minutes back, X was losing. <S> When I checked the score, X was losing. <S> 10 minutes back, when I checked the score, X was losing. <S> As tchrist tells you, ago may be substituted for back ; but this is true only if your 'reference time', the time to which you are relating the event, is the present moment when you are speaking. <S> If you are relating the event to other events in the past you cannot use ago but must use before that or back : <S> Right now X is winning; but <S> 10 minutes ago when I checked the score, X was losing. <S> At half time <S> X was winning; but 10 minutes back , when I checked the score, X was [or, had been ] losing. <S> Note that this use is different from back when , an intensive variant of when which locates the event you are speaking of in an explicitly remote past: <S> Back when I was a boy, Alabama schools were still segregated. <S> All of these uses of back are colloquial rather than formal. <A> OP's usage is "correct", in that I doubt anyone can cite a "grammatical rule" forbidding it, but ... ... <S> I'd advise against it, purely on the ground <S> virtually no-one else uses the form. <S> As StoneyB points out, "ago" is only valid when the "reference time" is the current time of speaking , whereas "back" can in principle also be used of a reference time in the past... <S> This afternoon he scored a brilliant goal! <S> He'd been on the substitute bench only 5 minutes back. <S> But I don't like that one little bit. <S> I'd recommend using ago whenever the referrence time is the present, and earlier, before, prior to that, or previously , for example, if the timeframe is entirely in the past.
| Yes, it is perfectly fine, although perhaps ago sounds better than back .
|
Mnemonic for remembering the difference between 'while' and 'until'? My mother almost consistently uses "while" when she means "until", and vice versa. (This is because in her native language, those are the same word.) Obviously, I can't simply tell her, "whichever word you were about to say, choose the other one", because that would just make her second-guess herself all the time, even when she happened to choose the correct word in the first place (see above about almost consistently). What I need is a mnemonic or other device that will unequivocally help her determine the right word to use in a given situation. Does anyone here teach English to native speakers who encounter this issue? What device or trick can you suggest for keeping these two words straight? <Q> What about the concise, memorable, and conveniently alliterative expression WHILE YOU WAIT, which is sometimes seen on business signs? <S> If someone can remember that three-word phrase (and the pictures I've added might help someone do just that), then it might be easier for them to remember how while would be the word that means "during some time interval." <S> Once you get one half of a confusing pair straight in your mind, the other half pretty much falls into place by default. <S> But if you wanted something more, you could simply imagine the business owner saying: I can fix this while you wait; you won't pay until I'm done. <A> The key distinction that you need her to recall is that while is used with durations, but until is used with (relatively instantaneous) events. <S> You should be able to replace while with during the time that in most cases: I can't help you while my daughter is crying. <S> is the same as I can't help you during the time that my daughter is crying. <S> Changing from while to until pretty drastically alters the meaning of the sentence.... <S> I can't help you until my daughter is crying. <S> is the same as I can't help you before my daughter starts crying. <S> Since "a while" is defined as "a period of time", a possible mnemonic could be " While takes a while; until takes a time." <S> (I should say, though, that it seems clever, memorable and useful to me as a native speaker, but I have no idea (yet) whether it will help a learner.) <A> Just tell her to shift the n a couple of notches along in the alphabet to p ... until = up 'til <A> How about these idioms? <S> Strike while the iron is hot Until you're blue in the face <S> "I can tell you they're different until I'm blue in the face <S> but you never remember!":P <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Strike+while+the+iron+is+hot http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/until+are+blue+in+the+face <A> "While" refers to an timeline where the starting and ending points are not specified. <S> I was ironing while watching the TV. <S> I will read a book while taking the train. <S> The starting and stopping points are not specified. <S> "Until" refers to an timeline where the ending point is known. <S> I was watching TV until my brother came into the room. <S> I will run until I get tired. <S> Here the stopping point is specified. <S> I'm not big on mnemonics or tricks when learning a language, its better to understand the usage based on the situation being described. <S> If she understands whether the situation being described has a starting point, ending point, both or neither, I think she can pick the correct usage. <S> My mother was not a native English speaker, and made a lot of mistakes while I was growing up, so I can relate to your situation. <S> I just tried to help as much as possible.
| Both their meanings are clear, they are short and easy to memorise and you could always tell your mother every time she mixes the two:
|
How can 'twice' be an adverb? I’m twice your age. (Oxford Dictionaries) It looks like ‘twice’ is a preposition to me, yet it’s an adverb. On what procedure do you think in your brain, can this be an adverb? <Q> You can make an argument that it is an adverb: In the sentence <S> "I am your age", the word "am" expresses a relationship between the subject "I" and the phrase "your age". <S> If I insert the word "twice", it modifies "am", changing the relationship between them. <S> I don't think this works particularly well; I feel like "twice" modifies the following phrase, instead. <S> If I say "I am twice", I ask, "Twice what ?" <S> It feels incomplete. <S> I think it makes more sense to analyze it another way. <S> This phrase is linked to the subject "I" by the verb "am". <A> In context, "twice" means "two times". <S> Ex: <S> I'm twice your age! <S> I'm 40, I don't have much in common with twenty-year-olds. <S> Note it doesn't always mean exactly two times, but an approximation. <S> If a parent were upset about their child dating someone older, for example, they would say "He/ <S> she's twice your age!" <S> if the other person were somewhere in the range of two times the child's age. <A> Since twice modifies am (a verb), twice is an adverb. <S> You could say "I am your age"; adding twice <S> you are altering the meaning of am .
| I would say "age" is a noun modified by the determiner "your" to form the phrase "your age"; this in turn is modified by the predeterminer "twice" to form the phrase "twice your age".
|
Is 'a' implying one of the family? Mr. Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work, and Mrs. Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled a screaming Dudley into his high chair. (Harry Potter) Why is ‘a’ put, although the Dursleys have only child? Is it implying one of the Dursleys? <Q> In other words, you can attach an adjective to that person and use "a" to refer to him/her. <S> This is not, therefore, something that refers explicitly to family, and in fact in almost every other situation it would be wrong to say "a Dudley. <S> " I imagine that the reason that it's ok to use "a" in this context is because it refers to one of potentially many "different" Dudleys, so you can have a happy Dudley, a sad Dudley, a sleeping Dudley, or even a screaming Dudley. <S> Using "a" like this also lets you keep the word order how you want it. <S> For example, say the author really wanted to keep the phrase "screaming Dudley. <S> " There is no other way to say it; the sentence structure would have to be changed to something like "as she wrestled Dudley, who was screaming, into his high chair. <S> " <S> The original just sounds better in this situation. <A> "Dudley", as you know, is usually used as a proper noun , not a common noun . <S> Most proper nouns don't take articles, so why insert one? <S> The simplest analysis is that inserting an adjective converts Dudley into a common noun . <S> In other words, "Dudley" starts representing the class of Dudleys: an angry Dudley, a pacified Dudley, a sullen Dudley, and so on. <S> This device has a long history and is mostly used in writing; it is most commonly used to divide a person into personalities (as above) or into ages (e.g. " a young Rembrandt "). <S> As a common-noun phrase, "screaming Dudley" can take either the definite article "the" or the indefinite article "a". <S> The rules for this are the same as for any other common noun. <A> No. <S> In this case the author is using artistic licence by using "a" to turn the verb screaming into an adjective of the noun Dudley . <S> The sentence is equivalent to the following: Mr. Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work, and Mrs. Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled Dudley, who was screaming, into his high chair.
| "A" in this situation is just one way you can refer to a person that is in some particular state.
|
Does this past perfect tense imply regret? Harry was remembering his trip to Diagon Alley - how could he have been so stupid? It was on the corner of the street that he noticed the first sign of something peculiar - a cat reading a map. For a second, Mr. Dursley didn't realize what he had seen - then he jerked his head around to look again. There was a tabby cat standing on the corner of Privet Drive, but there wasn't a map in sight. What could he have been thinking of? It must have been a trick of the light. Mr. Dursley blinked and stared at the cat. (Harry Potter) The first past perfect tense, surely, shows Harry being self-critical. In the context, it seems the second one also has the same meaning, but I’m not so sure because of what . Would you let me know better? <Q> No. <S> The first sentence you quote does show Harry being self critical. <S> He looked back at his past state of mind and wonders why he was stupid. <S> The second also shows Mr. Dursley being self-critical. <S> He looks at his present state of mind and thinks he is hallucinating. <S> It is not the tense that causes these self-critical meanings, but the overall action of the individuals. <S> e.g. <S> "I was so stupid," said Harry, thinking back to his trip to Diagon Alley. <S> e.g. <S> "How could I have been misheard?" wondered Mr. Smith, thinking back to his discussion with Clarence. <S> This uses the same tense, but doesn't show self-criticism. <A> The second example <S> What could he have been thinking of is closer to a literal question. <S> There's an element of incredulity (in both examples), but the second example isn't carrying along any negative connotations such as so stupid . <S> Dursley simply saw something, and after realizing that what he saw was highly improbable (even impossible), looked again and realized his first impression was incorrect. <S> There is puzzlement at what he 'thought <S> ' he had seen due to how far-fetched it was, but no sense of regret. <S> He's got " ... <S> a trick of the light " to plausibly blame it on in any event. <A> They are parallel. <S> Harry asks himself what deficiency led him to behave so stupidly. <S> That underlying your second example <S> He was thinking of [something improbable]. <S> Mr. Dursley asks himself what irrationality led him to think he saw something which could not exist. <S> The tense is not relevant. <S> You may just as well ask yourself, or another person: <S> How can you be so stupid? <S> What can you be thinking of? <A> To the extent that the present perfect is used with past events that touch upon the present in some way, the tense is certainly appropriate for expressions of present regret over past actions or failures to act. <S> But to say that the tense implies regret would be to overstate the case. <S> "How" and "What" in such questioning exclamations often mean much the same thing, since "how" has a very broad range of meaning. <S> How could I have missed that turn off the highway! <S> What was I doing to have missed that turn off the highway! <S> The answer to both questions could be "I was daydreaming".
| This gives the same sense of self-criticism, but a completely difference tense. The declarative sentence underlying your first example is He was being stupid. The tense by itself does not imply regret.
|
How should I ask a barber the fee of a haircut? I'm struggling as to which one of these two sentences is right. If neither, then what is the right sentence? How much is the fee for a haircut? How much do you charge for a haircut? <Q> (2) is more natural, compared to (1). <S> The most natural query, however, would be How much is a haircut, How much does a haircut cost, or most casually <S> How much for a haircut? <A> We don’t normally speak of a fee for a haircut. <S> Others have proposed normal alternatives. <S> However, In the UK, the prices are usually displayed in a prominent position, so the question rarely arises in quite that way. <S> Just before paying, a native speaker might say, even though he may know the answer, Right, how much is that then? <A> As others have said, we don't normally speak of "fees" when talking about a haircut. <S> You could ask: <S> What's the price of a haircut? <S> which would work about as well as your second suggestion, or any of Shawn's alternatives. <S> (In purchasing situations, the question "how much" implies a question about cost, which is why you can simply ask, "How much for this?" without mentioning "price" or "cost".) <S> I'd like to go one step further, and mention that when we do speak of a "fee", we don't usually use a prepositional phrase. <S> So, instead of asking, "How much is the fee for X?" we would say instead, "How much is the X fee?" <S> as in, "How much is the disposal fee?" <S> or, "How much is the maintenance fee?" <S> A fee is usually a surcharge that accompanies some other transaction or service. <S> For example, I might buy a new set of tires, and the place that sells me the tires might keep my old ones, but charge a "disposal fee" in addition to the cost of the tires. <S> An appliance store that delivers a new stove to my home might charge a "haul-away fee" if they take away my old one. <S> Banks might charge "fees" for services (such as a money order) or for penalties (such as overdrawn accounts). <S> So, "How much is the installation fee?" is a perfectly normal question to ask, and would be more common than "How much is the fee for installation?" <S> (although the latter phrasing would not be misunderstood). <A> Both of your forms are fine, but you should know the shortest ways: How much is a haircut? <S> How much for a haircut? <S> From the context, it is obvious that hair is being cut, so haircut can be shortened to cut : How much for a cut? <S> The variations are numerous: <S> How much do you charge for a cut? <S> What's a haircut cost? <S> (Note: what's is an informal contraction for what does ). <S> What is the price of a cut? <S> If I just want a cut, how much does that cost? <S> Etc. <A> Either/both would be perfectly understood, and they are both common enough. <S> But given the choice, I would generally use the second one instead of the first one. <S> It sounds more natural.
| When you're inquiring about an object or service (such as a hairbrush or a haircut), you would generally use the words price or cost , not fee .
|
Are sliding external doors "French windows"? I was trying to translate portafinestra in English, and I think I found the correct term ( French window ) whose definition seems to match with what I would define portafinestra : "each of a pair of casement windows extending to the floor in an outside wall, serving as a window and door." Can I call French window those doors that are opened by sliding them? If it is not the right term, what is a term that I could use also for sliding doors facing on an outside wall? <Q> There are a lot of factors at work here. <S> As Barrie mentioned, doors that open to the backyard are called patio doors. <S> Patio doors can have two styles: sliding, or hinged. <S> In the U.S., the sliding style doors are often called "sliding glass doors. <S> " <S> The term "French doors" is used for double doors that open outward or inward, particularly when they are made of paned glass. <S> I found these two images on a retail web site : <S> The door on the left is listed as a Sliding Patio Door ; the one on the right is a French Inswing Patio Door . <S> However, in day-to-day conversation, I'd probably refer them as "the sliding glass door" or "the French doors" – although either of them could be called "the patio door." <S> With all that said, though, I still found a website that sells "French-Style Sliding Doors," which sounds like an oxymoron to me. <A> <A> I can't speak for common usage in the US, but in the England, we used to just have doors, which were mostly solid wood and opened all the way to the ground, and windows, which were glazed and didn't. <S> Some hundreds of years ago, however, it was noted that in France, some rooms had windows (with glazed panes much like ours) that extended all the way to the ground. <S> These "long" windows, often be in pairs (and only ever of the hinged type) would provide access to the balcony or the garden and facilitate a nice air flow in warmer weather. <S> Architects in England started to incorporate the full-length hinged windows into their designs and they were referred to as "french windows", but only used in place of a window - the main front door of a house would still be largely solid wood. <S> The term "french door" is meaningless - unless you mean a door in France. <S> If you are talking about a pair of hinged, glazed doors, say just that.
| In England, we should say "french windows" (or "patio doors" if they slide). In the UK, sliding doors of the kind you describe are referred to as patio doors when they open onto an external paved area.
|
Why do some sentences have "thy" instead of "the"? I saw many times thy used instead of the , so why is that? When should I use it? What is the pronunciation of thy ? From the Bible (Christianity.SE) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul And here on ELL.SE “I tell thee, Brother Nicodemus, thy offences are numberless as the weeds which grow by the way-side. Here be many who have much to say of thee : —speak, Brother Ulick!” —William Clarke, Three Courses and a Dessert, 1830 <Q> Thy is not related to the . <S> So, thy simply means your . <S> Don't use it yourself unless your intent is making your speech outdated. <S> Deny thy father and refuse thy name -- Romeo & Juliet <S> I like the following quote, but don't treat it literally! <S> If the Lord would show thee but this one thing, -- that to use "thee" and "thou" to a particular person is proper language, and Scripture language; and that to say "you," is improper, and arose from pride, and nourisheth pride, and so is of the world, and not of the Father; and thou should bow thy spirit to him in this one thing, thou little thinkest what a work it would make within thee, and how strongly the spirit of darkness would fight against thy subjection thereto. <S> -- Isaac Penington, 1670. <S> Pronunciation . <S> As a good further reading I would recommend Wikipedia article . <S> Also, there are some usage examples in "Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine & Ye: Shakespearean English" . <A> Thy , which is an archaic or dialect word to say your , is nowadays used in certain religious groups and some traditional British dialects. <S> As English learner, you should not usually use it. <S> The th part is pronounced as in this ; y is pronounced as in my . <S> The IPA pronunciation of thy is /ðaɪ/. <A> Thy is the possessive form of the second person singular pronoun. <S> Its various forms are, as the subject: thee ; object: thou ; <S> possessive: thine , thy ; and reflexive: thyself . <S> The second person singular pronoun has fallen out of use in most English-speaking communities since the eighteenth century. <S> As in several other languages, the forms were used in informal settings or when the person addressed was familiar. <S> As class distinction became represented more by one's manners and customs, speech became more formal and use of the second person plural superseded use of the singular. <S> Thankfully, the same didn't occur for use of the first person plural. <A> The Lord's Prayer in Old English with translation into an archaic English [1] Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum, Father of ours, thou who art in heavens, [2] <S> Sī þīn nama ġehālgod. <S> Be thy name hallowed. <S> [3] Tōbecume þīn rīċe, Come thy riche (kingdom), [4] ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum. <S> Worth (manifest) thy <S> will, on earth as also in heaven. <S> [5] Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ, <S> Our daily loaf do sell (give) to us today, [6] and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum. <S> And forgive us our guilts as also we forgive our guilters[22] [7] <S> And ne ġeled þū ūs on costnunge, ac āles ūs of yfele. <S> And do not lead thou us into temptation, but alese (release/deliver) <S> us of (from) evil. <S> [8] Sōþlīċe. <S> Soothly <S> (Truly). <S> You can read this in a better layout in en.wikipedia, <S> Old English(far down). <S> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_english
| It is a possessive form of thou , which is, in turn, an archaic form of you (singular).
|
What is the word for something that is little in substance? What is the word for a movie or some product like a phone which is released/launched with a lot of promotion, or hype, but turns out to be very disappointing? <Q> In general you can just say that it was overhyped, which means that it got more hype than it deserved and did not live up to expectations. <S> But if you believed the hype and expected it to be good, you could also simply call it a letdown or a disappointment. <A> The mountain has brought forth a mouse . <S> The source of the idiom is most likely Horace or Aesop: <S> What could he produce to match his opening promise? <S> Mountains will labour: <S> what’s born? <S> A ridiculous mouse! <S> -- <S> (Ep.II.3, 136–9) <S> See also Wikipedia article . <A> You could use the word anticlimactic . <S> This adjective could help describe the overall promotion, as well as the disappointing end to the hype. <S> Collins defines the word like this: <S> anticlimactic ( adj. ) <S> (of a conclusion to a series of events, etc) disappointing or ineffective <S> There's also a noun form, which ODO defines as: anticlimax ( n. ) a disappointing end to an exciting or impressive series of events : the rest of the journey was an anticlimax by comparison <S> Here's an example where one blogger used this word in a 2008 review: <S> Sun Introduces MySQL Tech Support for Amazon EC2 Certainly interesting, but kind of anticlimactic given the buildup from gigaom. <S> As another alternative, you could consider the word Edsel . <S> Webster's defines this as: Edsel ( n. ) <S> a product, project, etc. <S> that fails to gain public acceptance despite high expectations, costly promotional efforts, etc. <S> and also mentions the word's origin: the Edsel automobile produced by the Ford Motor Company. <S> I'm not sure if the term Edsel is used in this way widely outside the U.S., but <S> Etymonline mentions that the word became a figurative hypernym for a "bust" not long after the car was introduced in the late 1950s. <S> You can read a brief history of the product, including its heavy but unsuccessful marketing campaign, at this blogger's BOLDRIDE column <S> (in case of link rot, I'll include a short excerpt): <S> Ford spared no expense in hyping the new model. <S> It declared September 4, 1957 to be “E Day,” when the Edsel would be unveiled. <S> Lead-up commercials and ads only showed partial images of the car, to create an air of mystery around it. <S> Meanwhile, ad men told the press that the Edsel was the result of exhaustive research that had determined the “perfect” vehicle for the American people. <S> Unfortunately for Ford, the public didn’t see it that way. <S> After struggling through three years of disappointing sales, the Edsel project was scrapped. <S> The debacle cost Ford well over $4 billion in today’s money. <S> To this day the Edsel campaign is studied as the perfect way to NOT sell a product. <S> Edsel might be a particularly apt word to use if you were looking for a word to describe the product from the company's point of view, rather than the consumer's, as in: I hope our new cell phone isn't going to be the next Edsel. <A> meaning it was a failure.
| You could say It was a flop.
|
What is the difference between "aroma" and "scent"? What is the difference between aroma and scent ? Looking at the NOAD, I would say differences are few. Aroma: a distinctive, typically pleasant smell Scent: a distinctive smell, especially one that is pleasant As Italian, I would use aroma since that is also an Italian word. Are there cases in which I should rather talk of scent ? In Italian, the other word I could use is profumo (probably translatable with "scent," in this case), which could be used for coffee too as in Che profumo di caffè! ("What a […] of coffee!"). Also, in Italian, when explaining the meaning of aroma ("aroma"), I would explain it in terms of profumo . <Q> There are times where I would tend to favor one over the other, but I'm having trouble figuring out a simple rule that dictates which one I would choose. <S> I would describe: The aroma of bread, coffee, and wine, but <S> The scent of a skunk, a perfume, a flower, or a woman <S> Also, not too unlike atoms and molecules , scents seem more fundamental, while aromas seem like more of a mixture or blend. <S> So, I might talk about the scent of a particular candle, but the aromas of the candle store. <S> Still, the literature has plenty of counterexamples, such as the scent of bread , or the aroma of the flower , or the scent of the wine , so it would be a mistake to interpret any of these thoughts as "rules". <S> The two words are largely synonymous, so there's plenty of room for overlap. <S> If someone said that only one of the two words could be used in a particular context, I'd regard that as smelling fishy . <A> I think the difference lies in purpose. <S> Aromas are where the smell is incidental to what is happening: - baking bread, making coffee, sweating. <S> Scents, on the other hand, have intent: - skunks, to scare off predators - cat/dog wee, to mark territory - perfume, to attract a sexual partner - flowers, to attract bees for pollination <A> In Modern English, both of these words are normally used to refer to pleasant odors; there are other words for unpleasant ones (stink, stench, reek, ...) <S> English has many pairs of words that mean almost exactly the same thing, because of its many layers of mass borrowings. <S> In this case, aroma is from Greek via Latin and originally referred to pleasant-smelling herbs for seasoning food with; <S> scent is taken from French sentir (which also gives rise to the modern English verb sense ) and originally referred to the act of tracking a game animal by its smell. <S> Some of these word-pairs have fine distinctions in their basic meaning: for instance, wood and forest both can mean an area of land densely covered in trees, but a wood is typically smaller than a forest. <S> Others don't. <S> Native speakers choose between these words based on how they fit the rhythm of the larger sentence, or distinctions of tone or connotation that are difficult to describe. <S> You do not have to worry about whether you have "gotten it wrong" while you are still learning the language. <S> If you want to improve your ear for the fine distinctions, the best way to go about it is just to read a great deal in the language.
| Aroma seems to be the more natural word for describing blends of food and spice, while scent seems to be more apt for describing the natural smell of a plant or animal.
|
What's the difference between 'justified' and 'reasonable'? I understand in some contexts they cannot be interchanged, for example, one can say 'the price is reasonable', but 'the price is justified' sounds incorrect. But I don't know what are the exact differences between them when expressing 'something is reasonable or proved to be reasonable". To me, they seems to be interchangeable in most situations. In addition, I learned that 'warranted' in some context also means 'reasonable', for example, you experienced a degraded service and then requested a refund, you can say "I feel a refund would be warranted". Can I use 'reasonable' instead here? Is there any slight difference that makes 'warranted' better? <Q> Reasonable means that whatever decision was made is appropriate given the particular circumstances , and most would regard it as so. <S> Justified means that whatever decision was made is done for a good reason, in the interest of fairness . <S> There are times the words could be used interchangeably, and contexts where the difference is subtle. <S> It all depends on the nature of the request or issue at hand. <S> I might use "justified" if I was angry about something, and was acting in response: <S> Was it polite to skip their wedding after they insulted me like that? <S> No, <S> but I think my decision was justified. <S> I might use "reasonable" if I think everyone would agree that there was nothing else that could be done: <S> Was I happy about missing their wedding so that I could go to my mother's funeral? <S> No, <S> but I think my decision was reasonable. <S> But there are contexts where either word will work just fine: <S> You said that you'd deliver the cake before noon, but it didn't get here until 3 o'clock. <S> I think my request for a refund is reasonable/justified. <S> In that sentence, reasonable would work because most people would agree that a refund would be appropriate given the circumstances, and justified would work because the request is fair. <A> A price could be unreasonable, but justified. <S> For example, if somebody sells something that he buys from somebody else, his high price could be legitimated from the fact his sunk costs are already high. <A> Reasonableness may be to some extent compromised with attendant circumstances and conditions. <S> But if something is compromised wth attendant circumstance and condition it cannot be justified. <S> While all that are justified may be reasonable but all that are reasonable may not be justified
| When speaking about prices, reasonable generally means "not too expensive"; justified would mean "made for a good, or legitimate reason."
|
What is this stuffed pastry called in English? I'm currently making these: It's a puff pastry stuffed with meat, mushrooms and spices, a roll cut into such small pieces. I wanted to brag about these on a forum except I realized I have no clue what they are called in English. <Q> They could also be spring rolls , a supposedly Chinese preparation. <S> If you wanted to be precise, I suppose you could call them meat, mushroom and spice rolls . <A> I would describe the OP's dish as being neither pasties nor patties. <S> The most well known type of pasties in the UK are called Cornish pasty Wikipedia defines a Cornish pasty as being: ... shaped like a ‘D’ and crimped on one side, not on the top. <S> Its ingredients should include uncooked beef, swede (called turnip in Cornwall), potato and onion, with a light seasoning of salt and pepper, keeping a chunky texture. <S> The pastry should be golden and retain its shape when cooked and cooled <S> I believe the dish cooked by the OP does not resemble a pasty in the slightest. <S> Patties don't quite work for me either. <S> There is a popular dish in Jamaica called, interestingly enough, Jamaican patty . <S> In the article the patty is described thus: ... contains various fillings and spices baked inside a flaky shell, often tinted golden yellow with an egg yolk mixture or turmeric. <S> It is made like a turnover but is more savoury. <S> In Italy this type of stodgy finger food is virtually non-existent and has never really caught on in fashion. <S> However, if an Italian had to describe the OP's snack food, they might describe it as being vol-au-vents . <S> Vol-au-vents are always made from puff pastry, the small, golden-coloured shell cases are usually filled with a creamy savoury filling. <S> However, in the UK, as Barrie England pointed out, they would be recognized simply as sausage rolls , i.e., puff, flaky or short crust pastry, filled with sausage meat, rolled and baked in the oven. <S> The most popular rolls are in fact made with sausages, but there are many variations on this theme, and not all of them need to be savoury. <S> Due to their bite-sized portions they'll often be called mini-sausage rolls . <S> Comparing the photos of the mini-sausage rolls with that of the OP's it seems pretty clear to me that the two snack foods share many similarities. <S> If one wanted to impress their guests with a fancy sounding name, I'd opt for vol-au-vent and call the mouthwatering dish, Beef and mushroom vol-au-vents. <S> Otherwise, if your guests are unfamiliar with the term Paszteciki , I would suggest the more British sounding Spicy beef mushroom rolls <A> English cuisine doesn't have anything quite like this, so unsurprisingly, there's no directly equivalent term. <S> Your choices in such a case are (1) use the native term and hope it catches on (like, say, pierogis have), or (2) find the closest equivalent in English cuisine, and use that term, possibly with an ethnic marker. <S> For the latter option, pasty (or pastie ) or Polish pasty is probably your best bet, since it's the only word <S> I know that implies a savory filling. <S> (In contrast, both pie and pastry tend to imply a sweet filling.) <S> Just be careful, because no matter how you spell it, pasty can have an entirely different meaning . <S> Make it clear that you're talking about food before you use this term. <A> Google suggests that "paszteciki" are a kind of "pasties", but bytebuster found "puff patties". <S> Both look very similar: the words "pasties" and "patties" as well as the photos of the meals. <S> Being neither Polish nor English native speaker, I have to admit that I cannot decide which it is. <S> (Maybe even both are used depending on details of the recipe?)
| They look like sausage rolls , which traditionally contain, well, sausages.
|
Difference between "came to" and "came up to" For these expression which of these two came to/came up to should I use In the morning he came / came up to me and said that....... I forgot my phone in the cafetaria in the afternoon. I realized that when I came / came up to the elevator. Can anyone please explain the difference between came to vs. came up to ? <Q> Came up to means <S> approached or walked up to ; it is used in contexts where one person is stationary (sitting or standing) and another person, on foot, approaches, comes up to or walks up to them. <S> This expression would be appropriate for your first example. <S> I disagree with kiamlaluno: <S> reached me would not be a suitable synonym here, at least not in North American English. <S> Neither came to nor came up to is the best choice for your second example; neither is kimalaluno's suggestion ( was in ). <S> The best verb phrase is got to the elevator, or, <S> more formally, arrived at the elevator. <S> Both of these show that you had arrived at the elevator but had not entered it yet, whereas kiamlaluno's rephrase means that you were already inside the elevator when you made the realization. <S> Both came to and came up to <S> are unnatural because, at least in the short text provided, there is no implication of here <S> that would require the use of come . <S> However, I would also suggest that kiamlaluno`s mistaken suggestion for the first example sentence would be an appropriate replacement verb phrase here: reached the elevator . <A> She came up to the window and asked to buy four tickets. <S> whereas came to can be used to mean arrive at : <S> I remember the day the veterinarian came to our farm and brought the bad news. <S> Obviously, there is some overlap between the two, because when you move close to something, you are also arriving there. <S> Because of that, I would say that you could always use came to , but you wouldn't necessarily always be able to always use came up to without a possible slight shift in meaning. <S> For example, in my second sentence, if I were to say: I remember the day the veterinarian came up to our farm and brought the bad news. <S> that might imply something different. <S> It could imply the doctor walked up along the road and stood at the fence (as opposed to in the original sentence, where it's easier for me to imagine the veterinarian in the kitchen). <S> Another possible interpretation after adding the word up is that the veterinarian came from further away – in other words: I remember when the veterinarian came up [from the city] to bring us the bad news . <S> However, if I said: She came to the window and asked to buy four tickets. <S> that pretty much says the same as the original, because we approach a ticket counter in the same way we arrive at a ticket counter. <S> As a footnote, these usages don't include more idiomatic uses of came to , such as: <S> I heard the trivia question on television, but it wasn't until I was driving in my car an hour later that the answer came to me. <S> The boxer was unconscious on the mat for a few seconds before he came to . <A> come up to means walk really close to the object and stand next to it. <S> Come to is a generic synonym to arrived at location . <S> He came to my house <S> that means he went inside, maybe visited me, or maybe talked with my neighbors, or maybe hung around making photos. <S> He came up to my house <S> That means he stood next to the wall. <S> Say, he wanted to check the paint on the wall, or read the address plate. <S> He definitely didn't enter the house, just stood outside, next to it. <S> In most context the two will be synonymous, you come to a person when you come up to them - <S> that's two different phrasings of the same action, with slightly different connotations <S> (you come to a friend, you come up to someone you want to punch them) <S> but in some contexts they will be different - "coming <S> to" will mean getting there for practical purposes, be it visiting, talking, using, shopping. <S> Coming up to means stopping next to it.
| I would say that came up to means roughly the same as approached (that is, move into close proximity with ):
|
What does "yet" mean, in this phrase? I was updating the software running on my computer, and I noticed that the description of one of the updates contained the following phrase: this is the best iTune yet What does yet mean in that phrase? What is the difference between that phrase, and this is the best iTune ? <Q> It basically means "so far", or "up until now": <S> This is the best iTunes so far. <S> I'd like to add that yet in the context of "the best X <S> yet" is usually used when describing: something fairly new onto the scene, made by someone with an established track record of success, with hints that there may be more to come. <S> When describing something older, particularly in the twilight of a career or a product's life, you'd be more likely to use the word ever , instead of yet . <S> For example, I probably would not say: Gimme Shelter is the best Rolling Stones song yet! <S> because that song was release in 1969. <S> Instead, I would proclaim: Gimme Shelter is the best Rolling Stones song ever! <S> Moreover, I'm not too sure I'd say: <S> When You've Got Trouble is the best Liz Longley song yet! <S> because Liz is an emerging artist without a large library of music to her credit. <S> Instead, I'd probably be more likely to say: <S> When You've Got Trouble is my favorite Liz Longley song. <S> Lastly, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't say: Heath Ledger as the Joker is his best performance yet. <S> because Mr. Ledger has passed away, and there won't be any future roles that may top his performance in The Dark Knight . <S> I'd probably say instead: Heath Ledger as the Joker was his best performance. <S> But, assuming I'm a fan of The Black Keys, I could see myself saying: "El Camino" by The Black Keys is their best album yet! <S> because the album is fairly new, the group has put out a decent number of albums, and there is no sign of an immenent breakup of the band. <A> Meaning that it is the best version of such thing that we know of. <A> Yet is telling us information in the present time.
| In this phrase it means 'up to this point in time'.
|
What's the meaning of 'it was no good'? Mr. Dursley sat frozen in his armchair. Shooting stars all over Britain? Owls flying by daylight? Mysterious people in cloaks all over the place? And a whisper, a whisper about the Potters... Mrs. Dursley came into the living room carrying two cups of tea. It was no good . He'd have to say something to her. He cleared his throat nervously. "Er - Petunia, dear - you haven't heard from your sister lately, have you?" (Harry Potter) I can’t find the meaning but "it was no good" seems to mean "there's no choice but to do something." What is the real meaning and from where does it come from? <Q> I think it's more of a British English saying. <S> But it makes sense to me. <S> " <S> In other words, there is a problem that cannot be ignored and action must be taken. <A> It’s no good by itself means, approximately, “ <S> This is a bad situation and something must be done.” <S> It derives, however, from a longer expression, <S> It’s <S> no good Xing … , where Xing is a gerund phrase: <S> It’s no good trying to cover the matter up. <S> It’s no good pretending we don’t notice. <S> It’s no good crying over spilt milk. <S> A variant of the expression is <S> It’s no use Xing , and either version means “Xing will not make the situation better.” <S> Observe that “It was no good” <S> is followed immediately by “He’d have to say something to her”. <S> Mr. Dursley is telling himself that the situation has gotten out of hand and consequently he and his wife must end their long practice of not mentioning her sister’s family, because that practice is “no good”: of no use. <A> In many cases it can have a meaning similar to: To not be acceptable <S> The boss had been abusing his powers for 10 years when his managers found out. <S> It was no good, he had to go. <S> [They fired him.] <S> In the example it is used colloquially to express that something had to be done about the situation becuase it would not remedy itself. <S> Its no good, I have to go home because I feel so sick I cannot concentrate <A> "No good" by itself is an expression equivalent to "bad" or similar words expressing unfavorableness. <S> A phrase like "it is no good" can mean "this is unacceptable". <S> When someone is said to be "up to no good", they are being accused of doing or planning to do malicious acts. <S> If someone says that "no good can come of this", they are claiming that the course of action being taken will lead to unfavorable results. <S> It can be interchanged with "bad" in some cases. <S> For instance, a referee at a sporting event might claim that a shot made was "bad" or "no good", both meaning that the referee believes that shot was either unskillfully made or not eligible for points.
| "It was no good" means something along the lines of "this won't do," or "this cannot do.
|
What's the meaning of 'how' in the context? Was he imagining things? Could all this have anything to do with the Potters? If it did... if it got out that they [the Dursleys] were related to a pair of [wizards] - well, he didn't think he could bear it. The Dursleys got into bed. Mrs. Dursley fell asleep quickly but Mr. Dursley lay awake, turning it all over in his mind. His last, comforting thought before he fell asleep was that even if the Potters were involved, there was no reason for them to come near him and Mrs. Dursley. The Potters knew very well what he and Petunia thought about them and their kind.... He couldn't see how he and Petunia could get mixed up in anything that might be going on - he yawned and turned over - it couldn't affect them.... How very wrong he was. (Harry Potter) ‘How’ is one of the most difficult words in reading English. Does it mean ‘the reason’ in the context: ‘He couldn’t see the reason he and Petunia could get mixed up in anything that might be going on’? <Q> In this particular case, how can be replaced with the phrase "any way in which": He couldn't see any way in which he and Petunia could get mixed up in anything that might be going on... <A> It means "in what way or manner." <S> The sentence is not about the reason they could get mixed up, but in which way they could get mixed up. <A> He couldn't see how it could be possible [that] he and Petunia could get mixed up in anything that might be going on <S> (I put the "that" in brackets to show that it's a separate word added in to make it grammatically correct.) <S> Mr. Dursley is not able to think of any series of events that would lead to the events (getting "mixed up in anything like that") happening.
| In this context, you can think of "how" as short for "how it could be possible".
|
"To go to buy" or "to go buy"? When I spoke with a friend of mine, I had noticed she used sentences similar to "I need to go buy food." Is it correct to say "to go buy," or should I say "to go to buy"? I know that I could say "I need to buy food," but I think that in "I need to go buy food," who is speaking is putting in evidence s/he needs to go and that s/he cannot stay any longer, or that her/his time to stay is limited. <Q> Go VERB is a colloquialism employed (apparently only in the US) to impart a little extra sense of energy and purpose to the plain VERB , as well as to indicate that VERB entails departure from the immediate situation. <S> It is employed only in the infinitive, never a finite or participial form. <S> You would not say: ✲ <S> He goes buy food. <S> ✲ <S> They went buy food. <S> ✲ <S> We are going buy food. <S> ✲ <S> They have gone buy food. <S> It is thus used with modal or semi-modal verbs, or as a complement or adjunct of purpose with lexical verbs, and invariably implies a future performance: <S> If you like, I can go get the dry cleaning now. <S> I would go gas up the car if I could find my keys. <S> John told Mary to go find the children. <S> Bill said he was going to go look up the address. <S> I'm putting on my coat right now to go shovel the snow off the driveway. <A> I would say (American English): <S> I'm going to buy food. <S> I {need to / have to / must} go buy food. <S> I don't know whether British English considers including a second to-infinitive grammatical or idiomatic, but I don't. <S> Many Americans would say: I need to go and buy food. <S> I don't say or write that. <A> Like the others, I'd also regard the "to" as extraneous. <S> That said, once again, I can think of examples that might be exceptions to this generality. <S> Let's say I'm going to the market. <S> Linda offers to go with me, but I tell her that she needn't feel obliged. <S> However, there's one tidbit of information <S> I'm unaware of: her pantry is low, and she needs to buy food anyway. <S> The conversation might go something like this: J.R.: <S> Well, I'm off to the market. <S> Linda: <S> Oh, I'll go with you. <S> J.R.: <S> No, that's okay <S> , you don't have to. <S> Linda: <S> No, I need to go – to buy food. <S> J.R.: <S> Oh! <S> You need food anyway? <S> Linda: <S> Yes, I do. <S> J.R.: <S> I see. <S> Let's go then. <S> I realize that I've changed the punctuation – some might call that a foul. <S> However, in conversation, you wouldn't hear the dash, although Linda might insert a pause just before she clarifies why she needs to go. <A> I am not sure about British English, though. <S> Such a statement often includes and, for example <S> I need to go and buy food, in the same manner as Please try and come does. <S> Bill's answer is great, except that I am going to buy food does not have the exact same nuance as I need to go (and) buy food : <S> the former shows intention, while the latter shows necessity. <S> As far as a more formal, grammatically-correct version of the latter, I like Bill's example sentences using <S> must and have to . <A> To go buy food is not normal British English, but, as other answers have said, it seems to be used in American English. <S> Speakers of British English would say I need to go and buy some food or simply I need to buy some food .
| I need to go buy food is definitely acceptable in casual, spoken North American English.
|
What does "immediately" mean in the following phrase? A website where it is possible to send messages to users uses the following message as confirmation that the message has been correctly sent: The user will see the message immediately. The message is shown in a list of messages visible in a specific page Users are not alerted of messages sent them The message is always the same, whenever the users getting the message are using the website, or not I would understand immediately as without delay , but in this case it is not necessarily true as: If the users are not using the website, they cannot immediately see the message If the users are using the website, they could not be watching the right page, and read the new messages What does immediately mean, in this case? What is the difference between the used message, and "the message has been sent"? <Q> "Immediately" , in this case, appears to mean "immediately available" , rather than "it will happen now" . <S> Clearly, as you say, the recipient may not be in a situation to see the message. <S> However, as soon as the sender sends the message, the recipient WILL have the message to view. <S> As for "the message has been sent" versus <S> "the user will see the message immediately" , consider the case of a letter sent through the postal service. <S> You have posted the letter, but it is not immediately available to the recipient. <S> Obviously the transit time is much lower for electronic communication, but it's fairly certain that most readers here have experienced e-mail delays. <S> The "immediately" appears to say that these sorts of delays won't happen. <S> (And User3169 is correct that ". <S> . <S> .the <S> user will see. . . <S> " <S> is bad phrasing. <S> I would put it as "the message will be immediately available to the recipient." ) <A> This implies that the message can be seen if the user checks the appropriate location. <S> Also, "view" might be a better word choice instead of "see". <A> As FumbleFingers says in his comment, the issue here is not really the meaning of the word "immediately", but rather the phrasing of the entire sentence as compared to how this system works. <S> I presume that no matter how this system is constructed, if the recipient is not presently sitting at his computer, he will not "see the message immediately". <S> Unless they have some technology that will ensure that no matter where the person is or what he is doing, like if he is watching television it will display the message on his TV screen, and if he is lying on the beach staring at the sky it will spell the message out in the clouds, and so on, I don't think they can give any assurance that he will see the message immediately. <S> Maybe possibly they mean that if he is logged into the system, no matter what screen he is on or what function he is using in this system, the message will pop up somewhere on the screen. <S> More likely they mean that the message is AVAILABLE immediately, if the user goes to the screen where messages are displayed.
| You could say The user will be able to see the message immediately.
|
Is the SVOMPT word order necessary in creating a sentence? I learned the English word order SVOMPT (Subject, Verb, Objects, Manner, Place, Time) rule at school. Although it was a quite straightforward rule when I was studying, now (under more influence from Slavic languages) I find myself not obeying it sometimes. So far, I haven't noticed that others do not understand what I say, but that could be because most of the people I speak English with are also from the Slavic language group. We usually put the most important part (the one we want to emphasise) at the end in Slavic languages. Also, the word order is quite relaxed in general. How about English? Is a sentence where one does not apply the SVOMPT rule easily understandable for an English native speaker? I found this page on A guide to learn English which deals with direct and indirect objects. Is word order switching also common in other cases? <Q> Word order is very important in English because it is so lightly inflected. <S> But your MPT pieces are 'Adjuncts' - not part of the core sequence - and may move around. <S> Moves to the front of the sentence are common: <S> I bought a boat last summer . ... <S> Last summer <S> I bought a boat. <S> We take taxis a lot in New York . ... <S> In New York <S> we take taxis a lot. <S> He finished the job as quickly as he could . <S> ... <S> As quickly as he could , he finished the job. <S> And a 'light' Adjunct (one of few words) may sometimes be moved to the inside of the core sequence: <S> I quickly polished off the sandwiches. <S> Note that " ✲ I polished off quickly the sandwiches" is not acceptable (although as Russell Borogove points out, it's perfectly understandable ). <S> However, a light adjunct may occupy that position if the Object is markedly heavier: <S> We found to our dismay that he had already started working. <S> Such intrusions are often set off with pauses in speech, and commas in writing: <S> We found, to our dismay , that he had already started working. <S> ADDED: <S> As far as emphasis goes, we tend in English to rely more on vocal stress than on sentence position; position is more likely to be determined by contextual rhythm, what the previous sentence was or the previous speaker said. <S> In both writing and we speech we also have 'information packaging' strategies that throw the focus of the sentence onto a specific piece of information: <S> It was last summer that I bought a boat . <S> What I bought last summer was a boat . <S> It's a very complicated subject about which many fat books have been written. <S> By and large, if you keep your SVO together, your listeners will figure out what you mean pretty easily. <A> This is someone's idea of what constitutes ideal word order in an English sentence. <S> There are plenty of web pages that'll tell you all about it, e.g. this one and this one . <S> Good writers don't blindly follow such rules, however. <S> They vary word order for many reasons: style, focus, emphasis, rhythm, sound, rhyme, etc. <S> What's important is knowing how changing the word order affects the meaning of your sentences. <S> Unlike Japanese, Latin, and Basque, English is a word-order language: <S> Man bites dog means something different from Dog bites man , and Bites man dog is ungrammatical. <A> Subject-verb-object should almost always be given in that order for a declarative sentence. <S> (The rules are slightly different for a question.) <S> But the modifiers -- your MPT -- do not come in any fixed order like that. <S> Whether I say "I bought a boat with cash in Plymouth yesterday. <S> " or "I bought a boat yesterday in Plymouth with cash." <S> or any of the other orderings makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence, while generally all these modifiers come at the end. <S> As Stoneyb says, there are times when you can move the modifiers around in relation to the SVO. <S> The rules for this are not simple. <S> I'm hard pressed to tell you what the rules are. <S> Let's see... <S> Modifiers for time are often placed at the beginning: <S> "Yesterday I bought a boat." <S> "In June I bought a boat. <S> " <S> These mean the same thing as putting the modifier at the end. <S> Less often, modifiers for place can be moved to the beginning: "In Plymouth I bought a boat." <S> "On the beach the boat sat. <S> " This is unusual and tends to put an emphasis on the place. <S> Other modifiers, hmm. " <S> With cash I bought a boat", with the intent to say that you paid cash rather than using a check or credit card, would be considered very odd and jarring. <S> But if someone gave you money, and you then used it to buy a boat, you could say, "With the cash I bought a boat" and that would be considered very natural. <S> Anyone else able to give some rules for this?
| The core SVO sequence is usually obligatory in declarative sentences, and there are fixed transformations for negatives and interrogatives.
|
What's the meaning of "as much as we thirst for approval, we dread condemnation" I'm reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People . There is a quote that says, "As much as we thirst for approval, we dread condemnation." What's the meaning of this? EDIT: The author of the book was trying to elaborate that criticism is a bad idea. How is this sentence related to criticism ? <Q> As much as we thirst for approval, we dread condemnation means that we are afraid that other people might disapprove of us as much as we want them to approve of us. <S> In this context, thirst means to want something very badly, not that we need something to drink. <A> Carnegie is citing a quote from Hans Selye , but I'm inclined to think it doesn't have the exact sense of most statements using this well-established general format, which are normally along the lines of... <S> "As much as I love you, I can't leave my husband" "As much as we want to, we just can't get married" etc., etc. ... <S> where As much as X, Y essentially means " <S> Even though X is true/desirable, it is incompatible with Y . <S> It's normally used in contexts with the strong additional implicit meaning <S> Y is the overriding factor . <S> Selye was a Hungarian endocrinologist, much concerned with biological stress (which had not previously been significantly studied, or even recognised). <S> Taking into account that background information, and Carnegie's likely intention in quoting the words, I think OP's quote is probably best interpreted literally, as simply saying our fear of condemnation and our desire for approval are equally strong conflicting urges. <S> That's to say, in this particular case, as much as <S> probably really does mean to the same extent that , but normally it's a "set format" construction where the second "statement of fact" overrides the first "desire". <S> Noting OP's amendment that the quote was given in a context where Carnegie's main point was that "criticism is a bad idea" , and the fact that it's in a book supposed to teach you how to win friends and influence people , I imagine he's advising against constructive criticism . <S> That's popularly interpreted as being where you explain what people are doing <S> wrong <S> (so they can change, and thus improve). <S> But you make more friends by ignoring what they're doing wrong, and praising what they do right . <A> As easy I could say, the hunger to achieve something is the same as fear of failing to achieve that thing.
| Dread is great fear, and condemnation is strong disapproval.
|
What is the word for describing a thing right at the edge? Let's say I have something like a laptop or a mobile phone which has got comparable positive features and negative features and it is very difficult for me to decide whether it is overall good or bad. Is there any word describing this thing? <Q> I would go with <S> It's a toss up between this laptop versus that laptop, because they are so similar. <S> This is an English idiom, meaning that there is a choice where it is difficult to decide between one solution and another. <A> Some informal idioms that come to mind are: <S> It's a wash <S> It's six of one, half a dozen of the other Same difference <S> A phrase with a less informal feel is: <S> The choices are comparable. <A> There's the idiom sitting on the fence (sometimes said as straddling the fence ). <S> This idiom is often used to describe someone who is having trouble taking sides in a controversial issue, but it can also refer to someone who is simply having trouble making a decision about something. <S> Which laptop are you going to get? <S> I don't know - <S> I'm sitting on the fence . <S> Phrase Finder defines it as: <S> sit on the fence ( Figurative ) not to take sides in a dispute; not to make a clear choice between two possibilities; to delay making a decision when you have to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition. <S> ( Origin: the image of someone straddling a fence, representing indecision. ) <S> You can read a few examples usages at this website . <S> Sometimes the expression is used negatively, though. <S> Wikipedia mentions: "Sitting on the fence" is a common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality, hesitance to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition, or inability to decide due to lack of courage. <S> This is done either in order to remain on good terms with both sides, or due to apathy to the situation and not wanting to choose a position they don't actually agree with. <S> Another word you could use instead is undecided , or torn : <S> Which laptop are you going to get? <S> I don't know - <S> I'm torn . <S> Collins defines this word as: torn ( adj. ) divided or undecided, as in preference ⇒ <S> he was torn between staying and leaving <S> The word torn implies a reluctance to choose because there are aspects of both possibilities that are equally appealing (or unappealing). <A> I believe the most accurate word to describe that situation would be ambivalent . <S> Or, you would be experiencing or feeling ambivalence . <S> From a quick Google search, the top definition gives: having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone. <S> example: "some loved her, some hated her, few were ambivalent about her" <S> You might like some of these synonyms as well <S> , however my opinion is that ambivalent is the superior choice. <S> Synonyms: equivocal, uncertain, unsure, doubtful, indecisive, inconclusive,irresolute, of two minds, undecided, torn, in a quandary,on the fence, hesitating, wavering, vacillating, equivocating,blowing/running hot and cold; As an aside, 'Ambivalent' is one of my favorite words and I find that I use it often. <S> I hope this helps. <A> Similar to "toss up" is the expression " <S> it's a coin flip ." <S> (This is the expression from which "toss up" is derived.) <A> "borderline" or "bordering on" seems the right sense for me, or as a phrase "a borderline <S> case". <S> "My <S> laptop is generally OK, but for some uses it is borderline" or "... <S> it is bordering on being too heavy / slow / ..." <A> Verge. <S> A single word replacement for the word "edge," when used to describe the emotional state or decisional position is used in the pseudo-prepositional phrase, "on the verge." <A> teetering <S> teeter <S> ˈtiːtə/Submit verb gerund or present participle: <S> teetering move or balance unsteadily; sway back and forth. <S> "she teetered after him in her high-heeled sandals" synonyms: totter, walk unsteadily, wobble, toddle; More <A> "Bleeding edge" technology is "leading edge" technology that hasn't been "worn in" yet. <S> The "edge" is so "sharp" that it is likely to figuratively "cut" both its owner and the problems it is meant to solve. <S> Most people avoid purchasing "bleeding edge" technology, because: it tends to be expensive it often has serious problems <S> it is often hard to make or get <S> it is often hard to get repaired <S> it often becomes obsolete when a different, easier or cheaper or safer technology is adopted instead.
| You would be ambivalent .
|
What's the non-literal meaning of "neckbeard"? Wikipedia gives a literal description for Neckbeard : Neckbeard (a.k.a. Neard) — similar to the Chinstrap, but with the chin and jawline shaven, leaving hair to grow only on the neck. While never as popular as other beard styles, a few noted historical figures have worn this type of beard, such as Nero, Horace Greeley, William Empson, Moses Mendelssohn and Richard Wagner. but I've seen it used in non-literal contexts. For example, in the documentation for a programming related tool, it talks about Neckbeard configuration : Neckbeard Configuration Skip this section unless you must know what every line in your shell profile is doing. Onelook.com only gave a link to Wikipedia's literal description, and to Wordnik, which only listed examples of its use rather than defining the word. What does the term mean when not used literally? <Q> A person who is a neckbeard is a an obsessive, know-it-all male geek, and called so because growing a scraggly neckbeard may be taken as a sign of the poor grooming and/or social competence stereotypically attributed to them. <S> In the example above, a "neckbeard" is someone who doesn't trust the automated configuration and installation of the software, and demands to see (and to judge) its programming logic, and either tweak it with his own improvements or bypass it altogether. <A> If you can't find it on wikipedia, look in the urban dictionary. <S> Neckbeard: ... <S> 2. <S> (n) <S> Derogatory term for slovenly nerdy people who have no sense of hygene (sic) or grooming. <S> Often related to hobbies such as card gaming, video gaming, anime, et. <S> al. <S> Also in this instance, selecting the 'Images' search gives you a fairly good visual idea of what the term means (possibly sans pictures of Abe Lincoln). <A> It has no set meaning. <S> When you see it used, don't assume they are using it to talk about D&D/anime nerds who work as Linux sysadmins and customize Puppet scripts. <S> In programming subreddits, I have seen it used in derogatory fashion to refer to hipster-type indie game developers, particularly those who make hipstery iOS games, wear black-rimmed glasses, and do most of their work via free wifi in the coffee shop inside of Powell's Books in Portland.
| "Neckbeard" is a term of abuse which has seen a rise in popularity thanks to some "neckbeard" photo clichés circulating the Internet.
|
Can 'we' be singular? "No problems, were there?" "No, sir - house was almost destroyed, but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around. He fell asleep as we was flyin' over Bristol." (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Can we use was after we , like the example, binding two people as a bunch: as in the case that Chelsea can be both singular and plural? <Q> However it is considered uneducated and incorrect. <S> The author uses it here to demonstrate the characters' social class and/or background, in this case being below the other characters. <S> Note also how other words are changed or dropped, flying becoming flyin' and no <S> the in front of house. <A> This is colloquial variation in the vernacular of some parts of British and American English, and is not Standard English. <S> The Standard English equivalent is this: He fell asleep as we were flying over Bristol. <S> Generally English learners should avoid "we was" in all cases other than quoted vernacular speech. <S> English learners should avoid its use in English exams, formal writing and non-dialectic speech. <A> Doesn't (or didn't) royalty use 'we' as a singular? <S> Good old Queen Victoria - ' <S> We are not amused'. <S> Or should she have said 'We is not amused'... <S> I jest.
| In spoken English (british) we often hear was after we , like in the example.
|
"What it does is {VERB / to VERB / VERBing} ..."? For these expressions What a paper shredder does is tearing the paper/tear the paper in small pieces which can be easily disposed. What he wants to do is to become/become a ballplayer. Which of these two forms is correct here to become/become , tearing/tear ? <Q> There are several different ways of producing subordinate clauses: with <S> that ... that he becomes/should become a baseball player with a marked infinitive ... <S> [him] to become a baseball player with an unmarked infinitive ... become a baseball player with for + a marked <S> infinitive ... for him to become a baseball player with a gerund ... becoming a baseball player <S> Each lexical verb 'licenses' (permits) some of these, but not all. <S> Want , for instance permits: <S> He wants to become a baseball player ... with an implicit subject = <S> the subject of the main clause <S> I want him to become a baseball player ... <S> AND I want for him to become a baseball player ... <S> with a different subject <S> But you may not say <S> ✲ <S> I want that he should become a baseball player. <S> ✲ <S> He wants become a baseball player. <S> ✲ <S> He wants becoming a baseball player ... and so forth . <S> And when you move the pieces around to create what grammarians call cleft constructions, like your What sentences, you have to follow the requirements of the verb, as in What he wants ... <S> is to become . <S> Do is a little tricky, because it's not ordinarily a main verb; but with other verbs it acts like a modal, taking an unmarked infinitive: <S> Yes, the paper shredder does cut the paper into small pieces . <S> That's why, in your example, you may use either to become to agree with wants or unmarked <S> become to agree with do . <S> In the other construction, though, there is no such ambivalence, and you want the unmarked infinitive: <S> What the paper shredder does is tear the paper into small pieces. <S> ✲ marks an utterance as unacceptable <A> For the "become" example, both versions are correct in the sense that native speakers will sometimes say it that way. <S> However, the "to" is not really needed, so the sentence is better without it. <S> ("Omit needless words", as they say; and the version with the extra "to" is somewhat informal.) <S> What he wants to do is [to] become a ballplayer. <S> Same as with the other example, you can say "to tear", but plain "tear" is probably better. <S> And I would use "into small pieces", not "in small pieces". <S> (Also, every paper shredder I've ever met has had blades, so the correct verb would be cut , not tear , but now I'm just quibbling.) <S> What the paper shredder does is [to] tear the paper into small pieces. <A> In your second example, you should use become (without to ), as in the following sentence: the last thing I want my kids to do <S> is become professional fighters. <S> Similar phrases are the following ones: What the church does is provide the mechanism for identifying exceptional holiness. <S> 95% of what the government does is redistribute wealth. <S> If you change that or alter it by dieting, what the body does is resist .
| For the paper shredder example, "tearing" is incorrect. In your first example, tear is what you should do.
|
How to address correctly: "Please someone ..." or "Someone please ..."? How should one address a person or a group of people, for example, in a email conversation at the start of a sentence? Please somebody do something very simple if some simple condition . Somebody please do something very simple if some simple condition For example, something like "Please managers forward this request to your people if you believe they could give helpful feedback." Or "Managers please feel free to forward this request to your people if you believe they could give helpful feedback."What would be correct if both are incorrect? Should any punctuation marks be applied? <Q> In the context of an email, especially a work-related email, neither expression sounds all that natural. <S> Both expressions sound quite desperate, if not overly-urgent. <S> Business English does not usually resort to such desperation unless there is some emergency. <S> Either expression would be much more natural in a TV drama where there is imminent danger. <S> Your second sentence would sound a bit more appropriate if you added can : Can somebody please do something? <S> But still it would be too dramatic unless there was an emergency. <S> More natural, Business English-friendly equivalents would be: - <S> I hope that someone can help me - <S> If anyone has any suggestions, please contact me - If you have any ideas, please let me know <S> - Please let me know your thoughts - I would be grateful for any suggestions (about next steps) <S> - I am eager to hear any advice you might have . <A> While it's grammatically correct to use an explicit subject with the imperative mood (e.g. "Somebody help!", "Nobody move!" <S> , "Don't everybody talk at once!" <S> , "Don't you dare go in there!"), it's somewhat informal, not very common in professional writing. <S> In professional writing, the best solution is to write: <S> Managers, please feel free to forward this request to your team if you believe they can give helpful feedback. <S> with a comma after "managers". <S> Here the word "managers" indicates who the sentence is addressed to (compare "Hi, <person's name>, how are you?"), but the bulk of the sentence uses an implicit "you" (as is normal in the imperative mood). <A> It depends on whether you are focusing on "please" (a favor), or "somebody" (a person). <S> That should be directly before "do". <S> Punctuation is not needed, other than possibly for emphasis. <S> Also "if some simple condition" is an incomplete phrase as there is no verb. <S> Should be something like ... <S> if some simple condition exists . <A> In email there is no tone of voice so things can often get misunderstood if they are vague. <S> These two structures imply slightly different things to me. <S> The one you listed second is the more common and would probably be the most likely to be taken at face value. <S> The other is often used to express exasperation or despair. <S> For example, if I received the following <S> Somebody please make coffee if we run out during the meeting with this client <S> I would probably just assume that the sender wanted to make sure we didn't run out of coffee. <S> However, if I received this: Please somebody make coffee if we run out during the meeting with this client <S> I might interpret it as either the client is very picky or that there had been issues in the past where people didn't make more coffee and the sender was irritated by it
| Either should be OK, but the emphasis is different.
|
Can I always use "leave go"? Looking for the meaning of leave as verb, I found the following sentence, on the OALD: Leave go of my arm—you're hurting me! The dictionary says that the meaning of leave go is "to stop holding on to something," and that is synonym of let go . Can I always replace let go with leave go ? <Q> As noted, this usage isn't common among Americans. <S> But I think even in British English we normally only use leave <S> go instead of let go in contexts where the "holding on" is literal/physical - normally to a part of the speaker's body (arm, hand. <S> ear, etc.). <S> Thus, Leave go [of] my arm! <S> is much more common than Leave <S> go [of] his arm . <S> Also, you won't normally hear it used transitively, as "Leave me go!" <S> (that's invariably <S> " Let me go!" ). <A> Leave go for let go would not be recognized in America. <S> It must be let go here. <A> My husband is from Pennsylvania and he always says "Leave go" instead of "Let go" and it drives me crazy, but I guess he's the one speaking correctly. <S> He was just saying "Leave go of that." <S> to our toddler <S> and I had to look it up because he's the only person I've ever met who says this. <S> His entire family says "Leave go." <A> I'm surprised at the suggestion that it's specifically a British-English phrase. <S> Whilst <S> not oblivious to <S> it's meaning <S> , I've lived in the North of England all of my life, and can honestly say I've never heard anyone use it. <S> I'd certainly never say it. <S> Perhaps it's a Southern variant. <S> Honestly, I'd always thought it was an Americanism! <A> Now my teenage grandson from Georgia heard me say it and laughed! <S> Grandma what the heck does "leave go <S> " mean?? <S> Never, ever thought it was funny or something incorrect till he questioned it. <S> Maybe a Canadian thing because growing up in Detroit, Mi is right next to Windsor. <S> Just a thought! <A> I have heard the use of leave such as "I will leave you go now" or "I will leave you know". <S> Used such as "we are fixin to go to Lexington and will leave you know when we start out". <S> Lived my enitre life in Eastern, Southern Kentucky, West Virginia, and adjacent areas of Southern Ohio And Western Virginia.
| I'm from Michigan, USA and I grew up saying leave go as in, let go of my hand!
|
"I feel I carry everyone in prayer" vs "I feel I ought to carry everyone in prayer" I feel I [ought to] carry everyone in prayer, in a present that is God’s, where I recall every meeting, every voyage, every pastoral visit. ( The Huffinghton Post ) Why does the journalist have added "ought to" to the above Vatican Radio translation. Does the piece take a different meaning without "ought to"? If so, how are the two versions (with & without "ought to") different in meaning? <Q> The Huffington Post has not added the phrase [ought to] to the VR translation, which as you may see at the VR site itself has the phrase, in brackets as the HP story reports it. <S> I note, however, that the VR Italian text (linked by choster in a comment to your question) has Benedict saying, shortly after he starts <S> Grazie di cuore! <S> Sono veramente commosso! <S> E vedo la Chiesa viva! <S> E penso che dobbiamo anche dire un grazie al Creatore per il tempo bello <S> che ci dona adesso ancora nell’inverno. <S> This does not (at this writing) appear in the VR translation; but it is reported in several newspapers and at the blog Whispers in the Loggia , where it is, significantly, enclosed in brackets just like the phrase [ought to] . <S> The blog translates it as follows: <S> [Thank you from the bottom of my heart. <S> I am truly moved, and in you I see the church is alive! <S> And I think we owe a word of thanks to the Creator for this beautiful weather that he gives us; the sun is here, even in wintertime!] <S> I conjecture that both of these are spur-of-the-moment interpolations by the Pope into the official text. <A> The sentence very much takes a different meaning if the "ought to" is included. <S> I feel I carry everyone in prayer, in a present that is God’s, where I recall every meeting, every voyage, every pastoral visit. <S> Without the "ought to", what he says is "I feel [that I do] carry everyone in prayer..." <S> This means that the speaker feels they are currently and successfully carrying everyone in prayer, etc. <S> They are confident that they are doing so. <S> I feel I ought to carry everyone in prayer, in a present that is God’s, where I recall every meeting, <S> every voyage, every pastoral visit. <S> Now as to which is the correct translation, I agree with StoneyB that you're more qualified to determine that! <S> But that's the difference between the two phrasings. <A> Looking just at the grammar, I agree with WendiKidd: "I carry everyone in prayer" says that the speaker does indeed do this. <S> "I ought to carry everyone in prayer" says that he doesn't <S> but he believes he should. <S> I followed the link and read a little more of the context, and it appears that by "carry" here he does not mean "support": he's not saying that he supports or upholds everyone in the world with his prayers. <S> Rather, he's saying that he carries his prayers to God. <S> That is, everything that happens to him and everyone he meets, he talks to God about this. <S> So leaving out the "ought to" doesn't turn it into a boast about how he is personally supporting the world or anything like that. <S> It just means, he seeks God's help with everything. <S> The "ought to" is probably technically correct, as it is unlikely that he really takes 100% of every concern he has and every person he meets to God, but in context the sentence works with or without.
| I would guess from context that the "ought to" was not intended, but can't be sure. With the "ought to", the speaker is saying "I feel [I should] carry everyone in prayer..." Meaning the speaker thinks that they should start carrying everyone in prayer, but isn't currently doing so.
|
What is the expected response to "What's up?" When somebody ask me What's up? I answer I am well, thank you. Is that the expected answer, or should I answer something else? What does a native speaker understand when I reply like that? <Q> Ah, this phrase is all about context. <S> The meaning of "What's up?" and expected responses depend on the circumstances in which the question is asked. <S> From what I remember, the phrase is derived from <S> "What's the update?" <S> which is basically checking up how things are going. <S> It has however fallen into common usage both in the US (I think) and UK. <S> As a greeting: "What's up?" <S> or here (West Midlands of England) commonly just "sup" is a general greeting, you can response with answers like "Not much", "Nothing", "Alright" etc. <S> In this context, the response is just a return of the greeting, or a confirmation that all is going normally. <S> This phrase is similar to "Hello" or "How are you" in common usage. <S> Example: <S> Person 1: <S> "What's up man?" <S> Person 2: "F <S> *** all mate" (my typical response to friends, this means nothings going on <S> and I'm bored because of it :^) ) <S> As an enquiry <S> In this context, "What's up?" can be when the asker of the question may have observed someone having some trouble, or is distressed at something. <S> It's a polite, non-intrusive way of checking all <S> is relatively <S> okay <S> or if they need assistance. <S> A similar phrase would be "What's the matter?" <S> or "What's the problem?". <S> When facing criticism or disapproval of something, a common phrase is "What's up with it?" <S> meaning the asker is not sure what they have done wrong and wants to know what said issue is. <S> Example: <S> Person 1 notices Person 2 with their head in their hands at their desk Person 1: "What's up?" <S> Person 2: "Nothing, just tired." <S> So to properly answer your question after rambling a bit. <S> The idea behind "I am well" is sort of right <S> - you are confirming that all is well and normal. <S> So in this case "Nothing" or "Not much" or "Same Old" are all fine, and will be understood by a native speaker. <S> Personally, if I was speaking to a non-native English speaker and heard your response I wouldn't think anything of it - it's just a throwaway question so unless something really is up/wrong, the response is irrelevant. <A> "What's up?" means "What is happening?" <S> or "What events are taking place?" <S> or "What news do you have to tell me?" <S> If something special is happening, you might relate it. <S> Like if someone at work asks you "What's up?", you might reply "We won the XYZ contract" or "Bob was fired" or something relevant happening at the company. <S> Like most polite greetings, the asker rarely expects any sort of in-depth answer, and any polite response would be considered appropriate. <S> "What's up?" <S> "Oh, hi Sally". <S> It doesn't answer the question at all, but few would think it strange. <A> "Same old" Some statement of current state of affairs. <S> It's a greeting, but it's also a question about news . <S> Mention anything important that happened recently, or give a non-committing answer that says "no news", e.g. "Same as always", " <S> The usual", or if you want to be facetious, say "the sky" or "the roof" depending if you're outdoors or indoors. <S> Specifically, it's different from "How are you" <S> - it's not just about you but things that concern you too. <S> So, answering "Sally is pregnant" is a perfectly good answer if that's the current news. <A> In addition to Felix Weir's excellent answer, you can also use other responses based on the situation and your mood. <S> Walking out of a frustrating meeting with your boss? <S> Coworker: <S> What's up? <S> You: <S> My blood pressure. <S> Feeling sarcastic? <S> Some responses to what's up might be:(note, use sparingly. <S> This can get annoying really fast if overused) <S> The sky. <S> A preposition. <S> The ceiling. <S> The lights. <S> The stars. <S> Gas prices.
| The most common reply is "Nothing much" or something alone those lines.
|
"The coast can expect thunderstorms". What does "expect" mean in this sentence? I read a sentence in my textbook: "The coast can expect thunderstorms" Does the word 'expect' mean we 'hope' something happens in that case ? <Q> It is sometimes used to mean "hope" or "wish", like a parent may tell a child, "I expect you to behave yourself at school today", meaning that the parent hopes the child will behave or is commanding the child to behave. <S> This is, I think, a derived meaning from "anticipate". <S> You are saying, "This is what I want you to do, and I just take it for granted that you will do it, <S> right? <S> You ARE going to do what I ask, aren't you?" <S> As BarrieEngland says, "the coast" here is a personification of an inanimate object. <S> I don't suppose that "the coast" has any thoughts about the weather, it is people who have thoughts about what the weather on the coast will be. <A> It means that it is very likely that there will be thunderstorms along the coast. <S> This is a figurative use of langauge in which the coast is imagined as being person, and thus capable of having expectations. <A> Expect doesn't mean hope . <S> The sentence your textbook used means <S> "It is expected that the coast will get thunderstorms." <S> which is different from "Her parents expected high standards from her. <S> " <S> In the first case, expected means thought or believed ; in the second case, expected means demanded .
| "Expect" means "anticipate", to believe that something is going to happen or is likely to happen.
|
What do you call a person who usually talks about a matter he/she doesn't know much about? I thought to terms below and found them inappropriate: Ignorant = A person who doesn't know generally = incorrect Talkative = A person who may know a lot too! = incorrect Awkward = A person who may know a lot but cannot express his/her knowledge appropriately = incorrect Liar = A person who lies but may know a lot! = incorrect Shallow = A person with shallow knowledge but may not try to force his/her ideas to the others = incorrect Windbag = A person who talks a lot but may know a lot too = incorrect Facile = Easygoing = incorrect Can you suggest a better word or phrase? <Q> Know-it-all (“Someone who obnoxiously claims to be knowledgeable on a subject”) has already been mentioned. <S> Synonyms include smart aleck , wiseguy , and clever dick . <S> However, wiseacre (“One who feigns knowledge or cleverness; an insolent upstart”) may be a better choice than any of those. <S> For adjectives, consider facile and shallow . <S> For related words that might apply, consider blowhard <S> (“A person who talks too much or too loudly, especially in a boastful or self-important manner”) and instant expert . <S> Note, per tvtropes , the latter also has meanings that don't apply – specifically, how some superheroes almost instantly pick up new skills. <A> I've never heard anyone use this in speech, but a "technically correct" word for it is ultracrepidarian . <A> You would call someone like this an " armchair expert ". <S> An armchair expert is somebody who speaks with authority on a subject while having little to zero practical experience in the topic at hand. <S> The number of people acting like armchair experts appears to be increasing, and it appears to be in direct correlation to the ever increasing availability of information via the internet. <S> Thanks to the internet, I can read endlessly about medicine and medical problems. <S> I can casually fill my head with half facts and regurgitate them on demand. <S> However, being that I am not a doctor, though I could shoot my mouth off all day regurgitating these facts, I would most likely fail entirely at accurately assembling or interpreting any of this information. <S> To other non-doctors however, it may appear that I am accurate. <S> The moment I actually attempted to do this, I would be an armchair expert. <S> It would be hot air making me sound like a medical expert, masking the fact that I'm a complete fraud, a counterfeit masking the magnitude of my incompetence with a false air of confidence. <S> Another example of an armchair expert is all the men that sit in bars watching UFC shooting their mouths off criticizing a fighter, while the only fighting experience they have is getting a wedgie by the school bully in grade 6. <S> These are all armchair experts. <S> I hope you had a laugh. <S> ;) <A> In America, we usually call these people politicians. <S> But seriously, some other words for this sort of behavior: blatherskite its shorter cousin blatherer a humbug <S> a twaddler , or more commonly, as a verb, i.e. "don't mind him <S> , he twaddles" or a noun, "don't mind his twaddle" <S> And then various words for this kind of talk, usually used like "that person speaks a lot of ____ " poppycock prattle malarkey <S> balderdash <S> baloney <S> hocus pocus, sometimes hokeypokey, sometimes hokum, sometimes hooey My personal favorite: <S> applesauce <A> <A> You could call them a dilettante , but I would warn you that it can sound extremely pretentious.
| You may consider Loud-mouth , a person who talks too much and who says unpleasant or stupid things
|
How do I use the word "documentation"? I am not sure how I should be using the word "documentation". A documentation (on/of) X will be created soon. A documentation (on/of) X is coming soon. In the near future, I will create a documentation of X. <Q> Weird and wonderful things happen to language in the IT world, so I won't speak to usage there; but in the scholarly world documentation means one of two things: the act of documenting : providing texts or other material which establish the authority of an account, or a body of texts and other materials which provide an authoritative account of something <S> One “creates” a document, but one documents or provides (or furnishes or supplies ) documentation of or for something else. <S> For instance: Documentation of this claim will be provided shortly. <S> Documentation of/for this project will be published soon. <S> In the near future I will document this claim. <A> Documentation is uncountable. <S> Thus you shouldn't write a documentation . <A> Assuming we are using the word documentation as is customarily used in software engineering, here's how I would write those: Documentation for X will be finished soon. <S> Documentation on X is coming soon. <S> In the near future, I will write the documentation for X. <A> The above answers are all good, however I would like to add that there tends to be, at least in my experience, a trend of slightly different usages between the options "on" and "for" "Documentation on" tends to be used for instructions and general information. <S> As in "Do you have documentation on how to set up the printer" "Documentation for" tends to be used for proof of specific things. <S> As in "Do you have documentation for this $10,000 tax deduction in case we get audit."
| As far as I can see, all three of documentation on , documentation of and (less commonly) documentation for something are correct.
|
How can I increase my focus and pleasure in reading English? After working on my oral skills in English for a couple of years, I am now more interested in learning written English, specially by reading. I have been reading a couple of books over the last months (Game of Thrones, the whole Sherlock Holmes, Lord of the Rings, some Stephen King...) and articles (the Guardian, the New York Times, the Atlantic, mostly). Although I've felt some improvements in my understanding, and learned lots of words, I'm still not enjoying reading English as much as I enjoy reading French (which is my natural language), and I'm not even what you would call a literary (checking my other Stack Exchange affiliations would prove that). When reading English I just follow the plot, but I'm really totally insensitive to the style of writing, in the choice of words, ... I hardly realized that when reading a few pages of French the other day, it's even way easier to focus on what I read when it is French than English. Have fellows who learnt English as a second (or third, or more...) language ever felt that? Have you been through that? How long did it take? Or is it just a never ending job in progress but I'll never reach the ease I have with French? <Q> First, you MUST have large vocabulary to enjoy it to the fullest. <S> But then, reading a book (and having a dictionary handy) is the best way to improve your vocabulary. <S> If a book is written well, you will not be noticing the style of writing unless you focus on it - and not focusing on it is perfectly fine. <S> It carries the mood, affects the atmosphere, gives the characters extra depth by giving them different styles of speech. <S> If you keep noticing the style, that's a failure on the author's side. <S> The style should be invisible, acting on subconscious level, affecting the way you view the story. <S> You may recall and realize it from time to time, but you shouldn't have it pushed in your face. <S> Now, if you fail to notice it even though you focus on trying to spot it, that's definitely a problem you may want to fix. <S> I'm not quite sure how, <S> but I think I'd go for style-heavy books, ones with style that is very easy to spot. <S> J.R.R. Tolkien, James Joyce, Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, Kurt Vonnegut - <S> I assure you you will have no problem spotting the style in works of these. <S> I think that once you learn noticing it on these vibrant examples, you'll have easier time finding it in works <S> where it's not nearly that strongly accentuated. <A> When I was a boy learning German I got a great deal out of reading German translations of my favourite English-language authors (not works I was already familiar with, but other works by the same authors). <S> Pick two very different authors you enjoy reading in French – perhaps a ‘high-art’ author and a popular novelist – and read them in English translation. <S> It could help sharpen your ear, because you will know the rhythms and registers – what it is supposed to sound like. <A> Check out writers like Kathi Appelt, Sharon Creech, Pamela Porter, or Carl Hiassen. <S> There's a lot to explore! <S> The more you read the more you'll notice the writer's stylistic choices. <A> Since we are both interested in mathematics and physics, the obvious advice I can give you is to read books on these subjects in English. <S> That way you will improve your knowledge both of these fields and of English. <S> 1) <S> Altough there are almost infinitely many suitable books in mathematics, you can't go wrong reading anything by Spivak. <S> I learned from him the not so common words <S> eschew and grok <S> : I'll leave you the pleasure to find out what they mean if you don't already know them. <S> 2) <S> In physics <S> I really like Wheeler and his student Feynman: they are both giants of 20th century physics and great stylists. <S> Just let me end by quoting this profound and beautiful description by Wheeler: Matter tells Spacetime how to curve, and Spacetime tells matter how to move.
| I find that books that target a younger audience offer some of the most accessible and beautiful writing in English.
|
What does "How come" mean? Is How come a phrase? What does it mean? Is it formal or informal ? British or American ? Can I use it in anywhere? <Q> How come is a fixed phrase with fixed uses of its own. <S> as an interrogative head it does not take ‘DO-support’—that is <S> , it is followed by an ordinary clause in indicative form: <S> And that's why I went to the party. <S> ... <S> And that's <S> how come <S> I went to the party. <S> Why? <S> .... <S> How come? <S> Why did you go to the party? ... <S> How come <S> you went to the party? <S> How come is not used in formal writing or speech; it is distinctly casual. <A> It means I don't understand how that can be. <S> Please be good enough to provide an explanation. <S> It is colloquial, and in some circumstances it might sound rude. <S> As a foreign learner, you should avoid it yourself until you are confident about its use, but it's important for you to understand it. <A> "How come" is actually often seen as a more polite, less confrontational way of asking "why?" in standard American English. <S> I encourage my adult ESL students to use it instead of <S> WHY in most situations. <S> Often when a person is asked WHY, they feel somewhat defensive, as if the person asking is challenging the action. <S> In my experience, when a person is asked HOW COME instead of WHY it sounds more like <S> the asker is simply, genuinely asking for help understanding the other person's reasoning rather than challenging it. <S> That leads to a less defensive response and better communication overall. <S> I believe students learning English should be taught HOW COME early in the language learning process, at the same time they are taught the basic question words <S> WHO WHAT <S> WHEN <S> WHERE WHY and encouraged to use HOW COME in conversation rather than why. <S> I'm surprised by the above comments that HOW COME has a stronger, more complex or rude meaning than WHY and should be avoided by inexperienced speakers. <S> I'm going to think about that and see if I can come up with any evidence that this feeling is common. <S> It is very different than my view of the phrase. <A> "How come" in questions is short for "How does/did/has it come + (that) clause. <S> It is colloquial style. <S> - How come your English is so good? <A> I'm not an expert on word history, but I do know that I heard this phrase more often in the South Eastern United States where I grew up more than I hear it in the South West where I have lived for 15 years. <S> It may be best to avoid it outside the South East unless you hear other people using it. <S> Many have stately that it can be replaced with "why". <S> In many cases, I would agree. <S> However, it needs to have more words with it sometimes. <S> For example: <S> How come my knees pop when I stand up? <S> Why do my knees pop when I stand up? <S> Or the verb may need to move as in this example. <S> How come <S> my check engine light is on in my car? <S> Why is my check engine light on in my car? <S> I would venture to say that the phrase means more than just "why". <S> I think it may have been shortened from a phrase such as " how did this <S> come to pass". <S> Just a guess though based on my experience using this phrase in the South Eastern United States. <S> Feel free to disagree.
| It means, as you have divined, why , and may be used, like why , either as the head of a noun phrase, or as a bare interrogative, or as an interrogative head; but It is never inflected : we never say ✲ How came or ✲ How has come or ✲ How comes or anything of the sort.
|
Is there a word for immediate future just like "just" for immediate past? Let's say, Someone asks me Are you having dinner right now? But right now I have an important call to make, so I say Not right now but I will have it in 4-5 minutes. Even though I say 4-5 minutes, I don't mean it literally. I want to say that I have got something to do but it would hardly take any time, so even though It is not right now per se but not after very long time also. What world can I use to say equivalent of 4-5 minutes? <Q> In US English (I cannot speak to British) <S> the equivalent would be just about to : <S> Q: <S> Have you had dinner yet? <S> A: <S> Yes, I've just finished it. <S> Q: <S> Are you having dinner right now? <S> A: <S> No, <S> but I'm just about to. <A> You'd have to say very soon , and you'd normally use it with a progressive construction: <S> Not right now, but I'll be having it very soon. <S> Shortly is an alternative, but that may be a feature only of British English, and it may not always be appropriate. <A> There are the idioms just a minute , just a second , or just a moment which mean to wait a short period of time <S> Q: <S> Are you having dinner right now? <S> A: <S> No, It'll be ready in a minute. <S> (not a literal minute, but a brief period of time) <S> Q: Are you ready for dinner now? <S> A: <S> No, <S> but I will be in just a moment. <S> "Let's get in the car." <S> "Just a sec, I forgot the tickets." <S> ( second is often shortened to sec in this spoken phrase) <A> Adjective imminent (“about to happen, occur, or take place very soon”) may serve, or its adverbial form imminently (“In an imminent manner”). <S> But be careful not to confuse imminent with eminent (“noteworthy, remarkable, great; distinguished, important, noteworthy”) or with immanent (“Naturally part of something; existing throughout and within something; inherent; integral; intrinsic; indwelling”). <S> If you don't mind a little confusion and ambiguity, you can use presently in its sense “Before long; soon”. <S> It also has a sense <S> “At the present time; now; currently”, so its meaning is context sensitive. <S> For example, “Not right now, but presently” means “ <S> Not right now, but soon”, while “Not right now, but presently, presently” means “When I get good and ready”. <A> Q: <S> Are you having dinner right now? <S> A: <S> I'll have dinner shortly. <A> As a British English speaker the most natural way for me to specify "the next few minutes" is to use " in a minute " (if you wanted to be specific and you literally meant one minute later you would say " in one minute "). <S> Examples: <S> "I'll tidy my room in a minute" <S> "I'll be with you <S> in a minute" You can also use " momentarily " in this context, especially in a formal situation. <S> "Dr Anderson will be with you momentarily" <S> would be typical usage. <A> The word, almost , when applied to a future event, conveys that you will be doing it soon. <S> I'm almost ready for dinner... <S> I just have to finish writing this e-mail. <A> Here’s how I would answer your question: <S> “Yes, I’m just about to have my dinner.” <S> “Not yet, but soon.” <S> “Maybe later.” <S> “Right after I finish my work.
| You can use shortly to describe the near future "Your dinner will be on the table in a minute"
|
'Flying glass' and 'doorway' during an earthquake; what do they mean? My book has a paragraph giving advice on what we should do during an earthquake: If you live in an earthquake zone, you should take some time to look around your house ... Check the mirrors in your bathroom and bedroom. Make sure they can't move. Don't put your bed next to a window. Planning where you are going to be during an earthquake is very important... Then you should sit under a strong table or doorway , or stand in the corner of a room. After reading the passage, my book requires me to complete the table. One row of the table has this: Flying glass : Check the mirrors Don't put your bed near a window I don't understand the two bold words above: What are the differences between door and doorway ? Why should we sit under a doorway during an earthquake? What does flying glass really mean? Does it mean glass can fly? <Q> The book has " flying glass " in bold because it is a heading, and the following checklist pertains to it. <S> In an earthquake, windows and mirrors can shatter, and the force could cause the broken glass to fall at an angle, not just downwards; this is why it is referred to as flying glass . <S> Anything that is projected into the air could have the verb "to fly" associated with it. <S> For example, <S> "As I walked through the park, I saw children having a snow fight. <S> Soon afterward, there were snowballs flying all around me as I rushed to get past." <S> A door is the wood panel with a knob or handle that you open to enter and exit a room. <S> A doorway is the framed opening that the door is mounted to. <S> As to why a doorway is a safe place during an earthquake (or even if it is), I found conflicting results when I searched for an answer. <S> This article suggests that crawling under a table is more safe: DO NOT stand in a doorway. <S> You are safer under a table. <S> In modern houses, doorways are no stronger than any other part of the house. <S> The doorway does not protect you from the most likely source of injury−falling or flying objects. <S> Most earthquake-related injuries and deaths are caused by falling or flying objects (e.g., TVs, lamps, glass, bookcases), or by being knocked to the ground. <S> As discussed in the comments below, the safest place for an earthquake depends on several factors, so please do the necessary research for your area. <A> The door is the thing that swings open and closed. <S> The reason for sitting in a doorway during an earthquake is that things may be less likely to fall on top of you, but some experts advise against sitting under a doorway in an earthquake, especially if there is a door, as it may swing back and forth violently. <S> Such fragments can cause serious injury. <A> Can glass fly? <S> I had a friend who was an aeronautical engineer; he once told me, " anything can fly, if you give it enough thrust." <S> However, in this context, fly doesn't mean soar like a bird, or fly like an airplane. <S> In this context, we're using Definition #3 from Macmillan : <S> fly ( v. ) <S> [ intransitive ] to move very fast through the air : <S> A bullet flew past his head . <S> Pieces of glass and concrete were flying in all directions . <S> Remember the wisdom and humor of Groucho Marx, who loved to leverage words with multiple meanings, such as like and <S> fly <S> : Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana .
| The doorway is the where the door is when it is closed, including the door frame; in some contexts it includes the door, but not in this context. Flying glass refers to fragments of broken glass flying out into the room as a result of windows and mirrors breaking and the building shaking violently.
|
Why is there a hyphen in ‘to-night’? How are you to-night , Helen? Have you coughed much to-day ? — Jane Eyre Why does Jane Eyre have a hyphen in to-night ? Does it signify that the pronunciation in Emily Brontë’s day was [tunáit], not [tənáit], or what? <Q> Per the Online Etymology Dictionary , tonight was written as two words until the 18th century, after which it was written with a hyphen until the early 20th century. <S> It's a similar story for today , except it acquired a hyphen about two centuries earlier. <S> In other words, when Jane Eyre was written, " to-night " and " to-day " were the correct way to spell these words. <S> They don't denote any difference in pronunciation or meaning. <A> To-day and to-night aren't the only words to have evolved like this. <S> I'm aware that Ngrams can be over-used , but, in this case, I think the way <S> these Ngrams trace the words’ evolution is rather instructive: <S> Incidentally, the same thing happened with to-morrow as happened with to-day and to-night . <S> This Reuters article might make one think that the demise of the hyphen is a relatively new phenomenon; however, as the Ngrams indicate, hyphens have been prone to vanish for a long time: About 16,000 words have succumbed to pressures of the Internet age and lost their hyphens in a new edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. <S> Bumble-bee is now bumblebee, ice-cream is ice cream and pot-belly is pot belly. <S> And if you've got a problem, don't be such a crybaby (formerly cry-baby). <S> The hyphen has been squeezed as informal ways of communicating, honed in text messages and emails, spread on Web sites and seep into newspapers and books. <S> "People are not confident about using hyphens anymore, they're not really sure what they are for," said Angus Stevenson, editor of the Shorter OED, the sixth edition of which was published this week. <S> Another factor in the hyphen's demise is designers' distaste for its ungainly horizontal bulk between words. <S> "Printed writing is very much design-led these days in adverts and Web sites, and people feel that hyphens mess up the look of a nice bit of typography," he said. <A> I remember 'to-day' still being used in the early-mid 1960s... and can see examples of this in TV shows of that era, such as " The Andy Griffith Show" (and many others), where signs & banners can be seen on set, in numerous episodes. <S> As I've been in the sign industry for many years, I tend to notice such things. <S> Where I remember the conscious change beginning (dropping the hyphen), was when NBC began airing "The Today Show". <S> The 1960s was the start of a major evolutionary change in America and the world. <S> Of course, logically, English is such a bizarre language anyway <S> (i after e, except after c, or on Thursdays around 3 o'clock)... <S> multiple spellings of the same (sounding) word, dependent on its usage, context, or wind direction. <S> It's... <S> ummm... <S> A great deal more difficult than it needs to be. <S> And that's why I choose to speak American, not English.
| "The hyphen is seen as messy looking and old-fashioned."
|
Meaning of 'on' in "We feasted that evening as 'on' nectar and ambrosia" “I meant to give each of you some of this to take with you,” said she, “but as there is so little toast, you must have it now,” and she proceeded to cut slices with a generous hand. We feasted that evening as on nectar and ambrosia; and not the least delight of the entertainment was the smile of gratification with which our hostess regarded us, as we satisfied our famished appetites on the delicate fare she liberally supplied. (Jane Eyre) What’s the meaning of ‘on’? <Q> It helps to know what nectar and ambrosia are; from NOAD: ambrosia <S> ( noun ) [ Greek & Roman Mythology ] the food of the gods nectar ( noun ) [ Greek & Roman Mythology ] the drink of the gods <S> The sentence means that, whatever they ate and drank that evening, it was particularly exotic or satisfying. <A> I think the key word here is as , actually. <S> The word as lets you know that it's a simile <S> ; the word on is just the preposition in the phrase "feast on [something]". <S> It means the same thing as if these words were inserted: <S> We feasted [on the food we had] that evening as [we would] on nectar and ambrosia [...] <A> Feast on food = eat food <S> On is just a preposition that follows feast when it is used as a verb.
| I would paraphrase it like this: We feasted that evening as if we were having nectar and ambrosia .
|
Is the interrogative structure "Is X to do with Y" grammatical? I don't know precisely why, but the interrogative structure "Is X to do with Y?" sounds weird and not natural English. In fact, if I transform "Is X to do with Y?" into the related affirmative form I should write "X is to do with Y", which seems ungrammatical because "is to do" has the form "to be + infinitive". Instead I know the form "to have + infinitive", therefore I conclude that the affirmative form should be "X has to do with Y" and the interrogative form should be "Has X to do with Y?" Can anybody enlighten me on this problem? I'm asking because on an earlier question a user changed the question title into the form I mentioned above. <Q> I don't think it's relevant that OP frames the question around an interrogative construction. <S> Grammatically, it's no different to: <S> [this] is to do with [that] ... <S> which has tens of millions of (mostly relevant) instances in print. <S> From Macmillan Dictionary : <S> have (something/anything) to do with <S> be <S> something/anything/nothing to do with to be connected with someone or something . <S> Idiomatically, there are certain preferences. <S> For example we very often include anything in interrogative forms based on <S> be ... <S> Is it anything to do with [that]? <S> (11,200 written instances). <S> ...and we often include what in forms based on have ... <S> What has this to do with [that] (134,000 instances). <S> Note that be to do with is primarily a recent British usage . <S> It's catching on in America , but current "prevalence" values are much lower. <S> That much is certain; what follows is pure speculation... <S> Looking at early (pre-1970) instances of is nothing to do with in Google Books, you can hardly avoid noticing many are Kenya National Assembly Official Record (Hansard) . <S> In 1972 neighbouring Uganda expelled about 60,000 Indians/Pakistanis. <S> Many of them were running successful businesses, and spoke relatively standard English; almost certainly they either influenced or were influenced by the dialectal variants used by politicians in the general region. <S> About half of the expelled Asians came to the UK. <S> Overall, they were well-received and have thrived in their new home. <S> My guess is mainstream British society adopted the new variant partly because of them, but here's the UK-based New Scientist - 22 Aug 1957 ... <S> If it is anything to do with I C I, of course, he will need no spurring. <S> ... <S> to show that it wasn't completely unknown even much earlier, in the ancestral seat of English. <S> Turning to the "grammaticality" question. <S> The speed at which this variant has caught on means many Americans may rarely have encountered it until relatively recently, so they may find it "strange". <S> But "grammar" really just means "what people say", so the sheer number of citations in recent decades is enough to say this form is already well-established. <S> I've no doubt that in a few more decades it'll be as familiar to Americans as it is to Brits. <A> "Is X to do with Y" is perfectly grammatical, and reasonably common. <S> For example: Is this question to do with English Grammar? <S> If so, the tag "grammar" is probably appropriate. <S> " <S> X is to do with Y" is also valid: <S> This document is to do with our company's new policy on IT usage. <S> This inspection is to do with the new health and safety regulations. <A> Here are some Google search results. <S> I found it surprising that the first form is the most common (I'd have thought the second): <S> "What is that to do with" -> <S> About 323,000,000 results . <S> "What does that have to do with" - <S> > <S> About 28,000,000 results . <S> "What has that got to do with" -> <S> About 2,700,000 results . <S> "What has that to do with" -> <S> About 1,530,000 results . <A> The BBC has recently used "is to do". <S> Seems to be a "Britishism". <S> Maybe a result from an incorrect understanding of the contraction that was previously mentioned- <S> just like some people use "of" instead of "have" (as in "would of").Here's the BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35119311 <S> "Is it to do with climate change?". <S> Admittedly I find this weird, would prefer a form of "have".
| For most purposes, be and have are interchangeable here.
|
Is "stove element" a common name for this object? I read in a book it's called a oven stove element , and I used this word. But it might sound formal, is there another more common name for it? If not, what else is it called? <Q> That is not an oven element, it is a stove element (or, sometimes, burner element , stove-top element , or stove-top burner element ). <S> Informally, it may be referred to as a burner ; as in, “Put the kettle on the burner”. <S> (At the stove-elements link above, if you click “Related searches: oven element ” you can see pictures of oven elements.) <A> In American English, burner is the most common informal name for this item. <S> In British English, I've always heard it referred to as an element , electric hob or stove . <S> Less commonly you can also call it the oven top burner or stove element . <A> If you said oven element , I would think you were talking about one of these: <A> In general parlance, I think it is fairly safe to just call it 'the stove'. <S> I'm not suggesting that this is the correct name for that particular spirally object, just that most usages would not need the precision of mentioning a particular element - for instance <S> if you are requesting someone to heat the kettle, you don't usually care which element they use, if you're asking them to remove a boiling saucepan, it is going to be pretty obvious which pan needs to be moved. <S> To illustrate: 'Can you put the kettle on the stove element?' <S> sounds a lot less natural (to me) than 'Can you put the kettle on the stove?' <S> (Actually, bad example: you would just say 'Can you put the kettle on?') <S> You need only refer to the element if you need to differentiate. <S> For example: 'Can you put the kettle on the left front stove element - the right element is broken'.
| I would call that a stove element or a burner .
|
What is the meaning of ‘through’ in ‘playing through the pain’? I often read on sports websites that X player played through the pain and helped his win the game. What exactly does through mean here? The dictionary meaning of through closest to the context seems to be from beginning to end of (an experience or activity, typically a tedious or stressful one) like through a bad incident or accident. My question is that how is it through the pain not in the pain ? Because most likely the player would still have the pain even after the game. <Q> It's common in the context of physical sports to speak of the pain barrier . <S> If you suffer some kind of injury (on the football pitch, say), your first instinct might be to stop moving so as to protect yourself from further damage. <S> But of course, our bodies and our response patterns have been evolving over millions of years - if the injury was caused by an attack that might still be ongoing, you're more likely to survive (and leave descendants) if you ignore the pain, and keep fighting or fleeing . <S> It may be that playing through the pain [ barrier ] will actually cause additional damage which could have been avoided by stopping immediately you became aware of a problem. <S> But just as failure to fight/flee could cause you to die if you'd been injured by an ongoing attack, failing to play on <S> might mean you/ <S> your team lose the game. <S> The sense of through here is to a point beyond pain (rather than continously , as in "I sat through the entire lecture without understanding a word" ), but note that normally you're only going through the pain temporarily. <S> In most cases continued activity will cause more pain in total. <S> But for that critical period in the game/fight, your body will produce endorphins (natural painkillers), helping your adrenalin-charged brain to force you to fight/play on. <S> You might well think it that was a good trade-off in the circumstances. <A> The expression means that the player suffered an injury during play, which caused them some amount of pain. <S> But the player chose to keep playing (and was able to play well and win, despite the pain) <S> rather than have some other player take their place (or to forfeit the match, if it's an individual competition). <S> The phrase can work on several levels. <S> Most straightforwardly, you can interpret "through" in the sense of "past" or "beyond" (definition 2 at dictionary.com ); the pain started at a particular point in time and the player kept going past that point. <S> Alternatively, you could view the pain as a barrier to the player's success. <S> Most people, when they are in pain, will (quite rightly) stop doing serious activities until they get treatment. <S> The player, however, broke through the barrier and won the game anyway. <S> So, in that sense, he played through the pain. <S> Also, in many cases when it's a relatively minor thing, it is entirely possible for the pain to go away during extended use; for example when a tennis player pulls a muscle in their leg, it may hurt quite a bit, but continuing to use it will keep the blood flow up and possibly improve the output of endorphins, so the muscle would stop hurting after further play. <S> (They'd still want to get treated for it after the match is done, though.) <S> So from a duration point of view here, they played through the entire period where they had pain. <A> "Through" in this context is referring to the idea that he didn't let the pain stop him or slow him down, so he played right on through it. <S> This is just a common idiom that I think most native English speakers never stop to analyze. <S> When they grew up they heard the phrase at some point and gathered the meaning from the context, and it just became part of their vocabulary - without really analyzing whether it even makes sense. <S> In sports, many somewhat nonsensical phrases have evolved from overly excited sports announcers, etc. <S> Many of those phrases make far less sense than this one, but they continue to propagate since they're funny or rhyme, etc. <S> Note <S> : here are some more interesting sports phrases: <S> He schooled him - <S> He completely defeated his opponent and made him look bad while doing it. <S> He got schooled - The opposite of the previous phrase; he lost very badly. <S> He got thumped - Again, he lost very badly. <S> He got his butt kicked - <S> He lost badly. <S> He belted that one <S> - He hit the ball very hard. <S> Grab some pine - You played poorly, go sit on the bench and let someone better play <S> He grew roots - <S> He didn't move when he should have Nothing but <S> net - Great basketball shot where it didn't even touch the rim, it just went perfectly through the hoop. <S> Note: many of these are considered slightly offensive, but are intended to antagonize your opponent during a match.
| This phrase means that he played even though he had pain.
|
'Short' is/means [quite] the opposite/contrary of 'tall' 1 'Short' is [quite] the opposite of 'tall'. 2 'Short' is [quite] the contrary of 'tall'. 3 'Short' means [quite] the opposite of 'tall'. 4 'Short' means [quite] the contrary of 'tall'. Which of the above senteces sounds more natural? And, how does 'quite' work there? <Q> "Short is the opposite of tall" would be the most natural for me in Canada of those listed. <S> Quite is useful if you wanted to emphasize that this difference is the highlight of the sentence. <A> Neither #2 nor #4 sounds natural to me. <S> They appear to misuse contrary . <S> For the other two sentences, “natural” depends in part on register <S> (ie, on context that dictates what style of a language to use). <S> In most contexts, leave out quite for a more-natural sound. <S> In formal, literary, academic, or otherwise hifalutin contexts, put it in if more emphasis is desired. <S> In the context of my own speech, I'd say something like <S> “ Short has some senses opposite to those of tall ”, instead of baldly asserting one is the opposite of the other. <S> Regarding is vs means , is sounds slightly more natural to me, but either can be used indifferently in most contexts. <A> In this case "quite" is used as an emphasiser, for example: <S> Jane is <S> quite tall Jane is pretty tall <S> In both of these cases the sentences mean the same thing, i.e. that Jane is tall, with an extra emphasis placed on Jane's tallness. <S> It's <S> use in this form is uncommon outside of British English, although even there its use is becoming increasingly rare. <S> Putting this together with your sentence, we can see that "quite the opposite" is merely an emphasis of "the opposite", hence the following two sentences are effectively equivalent: "short" is the opposite of "tall". <S> "short" is quite the opposite of "tall". <S> Consequently in your sentences, sentence 1 and 3 are both perfectly fine either with, or without the word "quite". <S> Sentence 2 and 4 are not quite right. <S> "Opposite" tends to be used comparatively, for example: "left" is the opposite of "right" <S> Whereas "contrary" reverses the meaning of a sentence and restates it: <S> Is Jane still short? <S> No! <S> Quite the contrary! <S> (Now she is tall.) <S> Notice here that "contrary" can be combined with "quite" to give the sentence additional weight and emphasis. <S> " <S> Quite the contrary" is an idiomatic expression that means "No! <S> Exactly the opposite!" <S> Therefore in answer to your question, "quite" is an emphasiser, and sentence 1 and 3 are correct. <S> Sentence 2 and 4 are not correct because "contrary" cannot be used comparatively. <A> Quite is an intensifier. <S> It increases the emphasis put upon the object it refers to. <S> For example: The pile of letters on his desk is quite large. <S> The use of quite here emphasizes the largeness of the pile of letters. <S> This makes sense, because an object can be varying degrees of large (very, extremely, etc. <S> could also be used in place of quite here, depending on what you want to say). <S> Now, to go over the sentences you posted: 1 'Short' is [quite] the opposite of 'tall'. <S> Quite does not make sense in this example, because something cannot be varying degrees of opposite to something else. <S> A is either opposite to B, or not opposite to B. <S> So intensifiers don't really make sense. <S> (You wouldn't say 'Short' is [extremely] the opposite of 'tall' , for example.) <S> So no, you should not use quite here. <S> As for your next example: 2 'Short' is [quite] the contrary of 'tall'. <S> The problem here is that contrary is not being used correctly. <S> There are different sentence formations when using opposite and contrary . <S> For example, these examples all sound natural: <S> Short is the opposite of tall. <S> Short is contrary to tall. <S> The difference in construction is that we generally say that A is the opposite of B, and that A is contrary to B. <S> And for your final examples: <S> 3 'Short' means [quite] <S> the opposite of 'tall'. <S> 4 'Short' means [quite] <S> the contrary of 'tall'. <S> You have the same problems regarding the use of quite and contrary here, but I'd also like to point out that using means instead of <S> is sounds quite odd. <S> There seems to be an implied end to the sentence, ie: " <S> Short means the opposite of [what tall does]", but the sentence sounds awkward and incomplete. <S> In theory it seems to be a grammatically correct sentence, but it sounds strange <S> so I would complete the sentence and write it as: 'Short' means the opposite of what 'tall' does. <S> Or if you choose contrary : The meaning of 'short' is contrary to the meaning of 'tall'.
| "Short is quite the opposite of tall" would sound a bit odd, but it could be correct if the intention is for people to focus on the word opposite in the sentence.
|
What's the name of the characteristic of being "open hearted"? I can not think of any another good phrase to describe the sense, "Open Hearted". This characteristic is like one who does not posses the nature of being stubborn, who has the ability to listen and in certain cases accept others' theories though they can be in opposite of his own theory. A good example would be if a person is capable of admitting if there is some bad customs in his own religion and he does not fall back to admit it in front of others and change the custom in his regular life. What is the name of this characteristic? <Q> The phrase you're looking for is actually "open-minded". <S> When one is open-minded, they're willing to listen to other opinions and, if properly convinced, change their beliefs. <S> The opposite of this would be closed-minded, like when you enter into a discussion with someone and they refuse to hear anything you have to say or change their mind. <S> "Open-hearted" would be more like someone who is very generous and caring, and is always there to give a helping hand. <S> Definitions for each: <S> See Synonyms at broad-minded . <A> Other ways to say this would be "easy going" or "flexible". <S> Joe is such an easy going guy. <S> He never argues with Bob, even when everyone knows that Joe is correct. <S> Jane is pretty flexible – <S> she never gets hung up on the sticky parts; instead, she focuses on the big picture and getting things done. <S> NOAD defines easy-going as: <S> relaxed and tolerant in approach or manner and lists tolerant and broad-minded as synonyms. <S> This may not be completely synonymous with open minded , but there is some overlap. <S> Similarly, NOAD defines flexible as: (of a person) ready and able to change so as to adapt to different circumstances <S> Here, "different circumstances" can be applied much more broadly than matters of beliefs and opinions (such as coping with an unexpected job change). <S> Still, the word might be used when talking about the situation you described. <A> ...does not posses the nature of being stubborn, who has the ability to listen and in certain cases accept others' theories though they are opposite of their own theory. <S> A good example would be if a person is capable of admitting if there is some bad customs in their own religion and he does not fall back to admit it in front of others and change the custom in his regular life. <S> I know that this is not as obvious, but I think the best choice is " reasonable ," which means "able to reason" and carries with it the implication that someone is able to put aside his personal differences and analyze things fairly, as they are (i.e., to reason ). <S> "Open-minded" is not bad, but it implies only an openness to receiving new ideas, not the ability that you described (not stubborn, able to listen, and willing to accept the better theory) which is reasoning . <S> The adjective is "reasonable" and the noun is "reasonableness" or "reasonability." <S> I admire how Joe, a Democrat, voted for the bill he agreed with, even though it was written by a Republican. <S> Joe is a reasonable guy.
| Open-hearted : kindly and warm disclosing intentions and thoughts clearly; candid Open-minded : Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.
|
Is there an English equivalent to this Japanese proverb? My boss asked me if his translation of a Japanese proverb was accurate the other day. Unfortunately, I don't have the Japanese written down with me, but I can describe it. His translation was "better dumplings than flowers". In Japanese, apparently the meaning of the proverb is 'someone who values items with practical use over aesthetic qualities'. Is there an English proverb equivalent? <Q> A very common English term in this general area is: style over substance (and something may be described as all style and no substance ). ... <S> where oxforddictionaries defines substance as: the subject matter of a text, speech, or work of art, especially as contrasted with the form or style in which it is presented: the movie is a triumph of style over substance <S> That expression applies to things <S> people might or might not value, rather than describing a person who favours one attribute over the other. <S> I can't think of a "proverb" alluding to either preference, but if you're much more interested in substance/functionality rather than style/form, you're a: <S> pragmatist - person oriented toward the success or failure of a particular line of action, thought, etc.; <S> And for closely related "sayings" which are very common... <S> actions speak louder than words - what someone does is more important than what someone says. <S> fine words butter no parsnips <S> - nothing is achieved by empty words or flattery. <A> I can't think of an actual proverb, but you can certainly describe the essence idiomatically. <S> I would personally use the following construction. <S> I would rather have a <Practical Thing> than a <Pretty Thing> any day. <S> Where I live, we don't eat dumplings, so we need a different example of a practical thing. <S> Here are a couple ideas: She would rather have chocolates than flowers any day. <S> He was the kind of person that would take an oil change over a car wash any day. <A> In America, mothers used to warn their sons that in choosing a mate, "Cooking lasts, kissing doesn't. <S> " The parallel with the Japanese proverb is not perfect, but pretty strong. <S> Put another way, flowers are pretty to look at, but dumplings are something that you can actually eat. <S> A mother who would choose "cooking" over "kissing" for her son, would also choose "dumplings" over "flowers." <A> Since you are thinking about aesthetic, all show and no go equipped with good looks but lacking action or energy. <S> (Used to describe someone or something that looks good but does not perform as promised.) <S> That shiny car of Jim's is all show and no go. <S> He's mighty handsome, but I hear he's all show and no go. <A> I'm not aware of an English-language proverb that refers to “someone who values items with practical use over aesthetic qualities”. <S> There are numerous colorful phrases for referring to people of an opposite nature; for a list, see the Synonyms section of wiktionary's “ all hat and no cattle ” entry. <S> (The “all sizzle and no steak” item may be a reaction to a marketing adage, “Sell the sizzle, not the steak”.) <S> The meanings of most forms like “All X and no Y” can be reversed by saying “All X, and Y too”, which means one has significant style, with some substance underlying it, or by saying “Not just Y, but X too”, which means one has not merely substance but also style. <S> Some quotations or sayings that laud <S> practicality vs aesthetics include • <S> “Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does the work” – <S> Mark Twain • <S> “It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating.” <S> – <S> Oscar Wilde <S> • “ <S> All that glitters is not gold” – adapted from Chaucer and Shakespeare <S> • “Don't quarrel with bread and butter” – trad. <A> But Charles Dickens wrote a novel on this opposition, Hard Times , and the name of one of its characters has become something of a symbol of the narrowly pragmatic attitude. <S> MR. GRADGRIND walked homeward from the school, in a state of considerable satisfaction. <S> It was his school, and he intended it to be a model. <S> He intended every child in it to be a model - just as the young Gradgrinds were all models. <S> There were five young Gradgrinds, and they were models every one. <S> They had been lectured at, from their tenderest years; coursed, like little hares. <S> Almost as soon as they could run alone, they had been made to run to the lecture-room. <S> The first object with which they had an association, or of which they had a remembrance, was a large black board with a dry Ogre chalking ghastly white figures on it. <S> Not that they knew, by name or nature, anything about an Ogre. <S> Fact forbid! <S> I only use the word to express a monster in a lecturing castle, with Heaven knows how many heads manipulated into one, taking childhood captive, and dragging it into gloomy statistical dens by the hair. <S> No little Gradgrind had ever seen a face in the moon; it was up in the moon before it could speak distinctly. <S> No little Gradgrind had ever learnt the silly jingle, Twinkle, twinkle, little star; how I wonder what you are! <S> No little Gradgrind had ever known wonder on the subject, each little Gradgrind having at five years old dissected the Great Bear like a Professor Owen, and driven Charles's Wain like a locomotive engine-driver. <S> No little Gradgrind had ever associated a cow in a field with that famous cow with the crumpled horn who tossed the dog who worried the cat who killed the rat who ate the malt, or with that yet more famous cow who swallowed Tom Thumb: it had never heard of those celebrities, and had only been introduced to a cow as a graminivorous ruminating quadruped with several stomachs. <S> One who holds rigidly to the “better dumplings than flowers” philosophy is a Gradgrind .
| I don’t know of any English proverb which captures the sense you describe.
|
Kristina 'stopped'/'finished' drinking [a cup of] tea and then went to sleep (1) Kristina stopped drinking tea ... (2) Kristina finished drinking tea ... (3) Kristina stopped drinking a cup of tea ... (4) Kristina finished drinking a cup of tea ... Are the sentences above somewhat different if they are referred to the situation in which Kristina is drinking and then, when she has finished, she has to go to bed? More precisely, which of the sentences above might be successfully ended with: ... and then went to sleep. <Q> Your examples using "stopped" have the feeling of her not finishing the tea - she quit with half a cup still left, or she was interrupted. <S> The examples with "finished" feel like she drank all of the tea then went on to do something else. <S> However, the phrase that feels most natural to me is: <S> Kristina finished drinking her cup of tea, and then went to bed . <A> Or in this case, she could have been in need of sleep so badly that she stopped drinking. <S> The correct sentence would be: <S> Kristina finished drinking her cup of tea and went to bed. <S> or rather Kristina finished her cup of tea and went to bed. <S> The word <S> then need not be used as in: <S> Kristina finished drinking her cup of tea and then went to bed. <S> Since this is a continued action (she drinks tea and goes to bed), then would make it more affirmative, and need not be used. <A> With your ending added on, those for sentences each imply something slightly different to me. <S> (1) Kristina stopped drinking tea and then went to sleep. <S> From this, I infer that Kristina has been drinking tea for a while, not just one glass, but finally stopped and went to sleep. <S> (2) Kristina finished drinking tea and then went to sleep. <S> This would be confusing. <S> Almost like she had an assignment to drink tea or something. <S> (3) Kristina stopped drinking a cup of tea and then went to sleep. <S> This implies that she did not finish the cup of tea for some reason and then went to sleep. <S> (4) Kristina finished drinking a cup of tea and then went to sleep. <S> This is closest to what I think you want, but has an <S> , I don't know, almost detached quality to it. <S> It sounds like something a police detective might say when reporting to his superior about what a subject under surveillance had done. <S> As Eric S said, "Kristina finished her cup of tea and then went to bed. <S> " sound much more natural.
| "Kristina stopped drinking tea" can mean she either gave up drinking tea, or she faced some problem during drinking, so she stopped.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.